LD 


AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION 
ERSITY  PROFESSORS 


IC-NRLF 


REPORT 

OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  OF  INQUIRY 

ON  CONDITIONS  AT  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH 


JULY,  1915 


THE  AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION 
OF   UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 


REPORT 

OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  OF  INQUIRY 

ON  CONDITIONS  AT  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH 


JULY,  1915 


.  3 
AS 


»•   • 

•  *  •  • 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

PRELIMINARY  STATEMENT 3 

I.    TENURE  OF  OFFICE 7 

1.  Term  of  Appointments 7 

2.  Official  Grounds  for  Dismissal 8 

3.  Procedure  in  Dismissal 18 

4.  Question  of  Truth  of  Principal  Charge 27 

5.  Present  Attitude  of  Board  of  Regents  with  Regard 

to  Dismissals 38 

6.  Summary  of  Findings 40 

II.    THE  RELATION  OF  FACULTY  AND  REGENTS 42 

III.  THE  COMPLAINT  OF  REPRESSION 53 

IV.  THE  INTERVENTION  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  OF  THE  STATE 

IN  FACULTY  MATTERS 60 

V.    THE  CHARGE  OF  SECTARIAN  INFLUENCE  UPON  APPOINT- 
MENTS    75 

VI.    THE  PRESENT  ATTITUDE  OF  REGENTS  TOWARD  REQUESTS 

FOR  AN  INVESTIGATION.  .  .  81 


PRELIMINARY  STATEMENT 

On  March  18,  1915,  and  within  the  five  weeks  following, 
seventeen  members  of  the  faculty  of  the  University  of 
Utah  resigned  their  positions  in  protest  against  certain  acts 
of  the  President  of  the  University  (Dr.  J.  T.  Kingsbury) 
and  of  the  Board  of  Regents.  Sixteen  of  those  who  resigned 
concur  in  summarizing  as  follows  the  reasons  for  their  action : 

The  immediate  cause  of  our  resignations  was  the  dismissal  of 
certain  of  our  colleagues  and  the  demotion  of  others  by  a  method 
so  unfair  and  so  arbitrary  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  retain  our 
self-respect  and  remain  in  the  University.  It  is  our  firm  belief 
that  the  changes  made  by  the  administration  are  but  the  expres- 
sions of  a  general  policy  of  encroachment  on  our  academic  rights 
and  duties  by  certain  interests  which  are  seriously  threatening 
the  efficiency  of  the  University.* 

In  view  of  the  large  number  of  university  teachers  con- 
cerned in  the  case;  in  view,  also,  of  the  fact  that  teachers 
in  many  subjects  were  involved,  and  that  an  inquiry  into 

*  Statement  to  Secretary  of  American  Association  of  University  Pro- 
fessors, April  17,  1915,  signed  by  the  following:  Byron  Cummings,  dean  of 
the  College  of  Arts  and  Sciences  and  professor  of  ancient  languages;  Frank 
E.  Holman,  dean  of  the  Law  School;  William  G.  Roylance,  professor  of 
history;  W.  C.  Ebaugh,  professor  of  chemistry;  Charles  T.  Vorhies,  pro- 
fessor of  zoology  and  botany;  Joseph  Peterson,  professor  of  psychology; 
R.  L.  Byrnes,  professor  of  bacteriology  and  pathology;  H.  A.  Mattill,  pro- 
fessor of  physiology  and  physiological  chemistry;  L.  L.  Butler,  assistant 
professor  of  English;  R.  G.  Sharp,  assistant  professor  of  embryology;  F. 
O.  Smith,  assistant  professor  of  education;  F.  H.  Fowler,  assistant  pro- 
fessor of  ancient  languages;  G.  A.  Hedger,  instructor  in  English;  F.  C. 
Blood,  instructor  in  English;  Harold  M.  Stephens,  lecturer  in  law;  J.  J. 
Thiel.  T.  W.  Arnoldson,  professor  of  modern  languages,  also  resigned. 
The  President's  recommendations  that  four  members  of  the  faculty  be 
dismissed,  and  that  one  be  demoted,  were  adopted  by  the  Board  of  Regents 
on  March  17.  Those  dismissed  were  A.  A.  Knowlton,  associate  professor 
of  physics;  G.  C.  Wise,  associate  professor  of  modern  languages;  P.  C. 
Bing,  instructor  in  English;  C.  W.  Snow,  instructor  in  English.  G.  M. 
Marshall,  professor  of  English,  was  removed  from  the  headship  of  the 
department,  but  not  from  his  professorship. 

3 


4  \    J&&J2W.CAK  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 


not,  therefore,  well  be  undertaken  by  any 
one  scientific  society;  and  in  consideration  of  the  gravity 
of  the  situation  created  at  the  University  of  Utah  by  these 
resignations,  and  by  the  charges  made  in  connection  there- 
with, it  has  seemed  best  to  the  Council  of  the  American 
Association  of  University  Professors  to  take  measures  to 
secure  a  thorough  investigation  of  the  conditions  of  pro- 
fessorial service  in  the  University,  and  a  report  upon  the 
case  by  an  impartial  committee. 

As  a  first  step  to  this  end,  the  Secretary  of  the  Association 
visited  Salt  Lake  City  early  in  April,  and  spent  four  days 
gathering  information  to  be  laid  before  the  Committee  of 
Inquiry.  The  purposes  and  scope  of  the  investigation  are 
indicated  by  the  following  extracts  from  the  Secretary's 
letter  to  the  President  of  the  University: 

The  situation  that  has  recently  developed  at  the  University 
of  Utah  has  aroused  much  concern  throughout  the  country  among 
persons  interested  in  the  work  of  the  American  universities,  and 
especially  among  members  of  the  university  teaching  profession. 
It  has,  however,  been  difficult  for  those  at  a  distance  to  be  sure 
that  they  had  correctly  gathered  the  essential  facts  of  the  case 
from  the  incomplete  and  more  or  less  conflicting  ex  parte  state- 
ments which  have  appeared  in  newspapers  and  periodicals.  In 
particular,  the  statements  made  upon  the  two  sides  of  the  con- 
troversy appear  to  have  failed  specifically  to  join  issue  upon 
certain  points  of  interest.  It  has,  therefore,  seemed  advisable 
to  the  president  of  the  American  Association  of  University  Pro- 
fessors, Dr.  John  Dewey,  to  send  a  representative  of  that  organi- 
zation to  interview  yourself  and  others  concerned,  with  reference 
to  the  matters  in  controversy;  and  to  endeavor  to  secure  as  full 
and  impartial  a  statement  as  may  be  of  the  relevant  facts.  It  is 
perhaps  advisable  to  explain  the  nature  of  the  interest  which 
the  Association  of  University  Professors  takes  in  the  matter. 
It  is  coming  to  be  a  well  recognized  principle  that  the  general 
body  of  university  teachers  is  entitled  to  know,  with  regard  to 
any  institution,  the  conditions  of  the  tenure  of  the  professorial 
office  therein,  the  methods  of  university  government,  and  the 
policy  and  practice  of  the  institution  with  respect  to  freedom  of 
inquiry  and  teaching.  In  the  absence  of  information  upon  these 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH  5 

points,  it  is  impossible  for  members  of  the  profession  to  judge 
whether  or  not  the  institution  is  one  in  which  positions  may 
be  properly  accepted  or  retained  by  university  teachers  having 
a  respect  for  the  dignity  of  their  calling,  a  sense  of  its  social  obli- 
gations, and  a  regard  for  the  ideals  of  a  university. 

It  is,  therefore,  important  to  the  profession  that  when  criti- 
cisms or  charges  are  made  by  responsible  persons  against  any 
institution,  with  respect  to  its  policy  or  conduct  in  the  matters 
to  which  I  have  referred,  the  facts  should  be  carefully  determined 
in  a  judicial  spirit  by  some  committee  wholly  detached  from  any 
local  or  personal  controversy,  and  in  some  degree  representative 
of  the  profession  at  large.  It  is  hi  this  spirit,  and  for  these  pur- 
poses, that  information  is  sought  in  this  instance.  What  appears 
to  be  particularly  desirable,  in  the  present  case,  is  a  fuller  and 
more  definite  statement  than  has  yet  been  made  public  upon 
certain  matters  of  fact  which  still  remain  not  wholly  clear,  but 
which  are,  presumably,  not  incapable  of  ascertainment.  We,  of 
course,  assume  that  the  administration  of  the  University  is  equally 
desirous  that  all  the  facts  in  any  way  pertinent  be  thus  fully 
made  known,  and  submitted  to  the  impartial  judgment  of  both 
the  academic  and  the  general  public. 

We  therefore  venture  to  count  upon  your  aid  hi  this  attempt 
to  draw  up  a  complete  and  unbiased  summary  of  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case;  this,  we  hope,  may  be  of  some  service  to  the 
University  as  well  as  to  our  profession. 

The  evidence  thus  brought  together  consists  of  the  fol- 
lowing: replies  in  writing  from  the  majority  and  the  mi- 
nority of  the  Board  of  Regents  to  twenty-two  questions 
submitted  by  the  Secretary;  oral  statement  made  to  the 
Secretary  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Executive  Committee  of 
the  Board  of  Regents,  Richard  Young,  Esq. ;  oral  statement 
of  President  Kingsbury,  supplemented  by  written  replies 
to  seventeen  questions;  collective  statement  of  the  resign- 
ing professors;  oral  and  written  individual  statements  and 
replies  to  questions  by  Dean  Cummings,  Dean  Holman  and 
six  other  professors  who  have  resigned,  by  those  dismissed, 
and  by  fifteen  members  of  the  faculty  who  have  not  re- 
signed; affidavits  of  Dean  Cummings,  Prof.  R.  R.  Lyman, 
Mr.  M.  H.  Sevy,  and  formal  declarations  of  others,  in  regard 


6        AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

to  one  of  the  incidents  in  the  case,  and  copy  of  letter  of  the 
Governor  of  Utah  to  the  Board  of  Regents,  relating  to  the 
same  incident;  affidavits  of  Dr.  A.  A.  Knowlton  and  Messrs. 
E.  H.  Beckstrand,  W.  R.  Argyle,  J.  H.  Wolfe,  John  Jensen 
and  Nelson  La  Mar,  relating  to  one  of  the  charges;  written 
statement  of  Mr.  O.  J.  P.  Widtsoe;  letters  of  former  stu- 
dents of  Prof.  G.  M.  Marshall  and  of  Prof.  G.  C.  Wise; 
"Public  Statement"  of  the  Board  of  Regents  issued 
March  18,  1915,  letters  of  resignation,  and  other  documents 
already  published.  The  Committee  desires  to  acknowl- 
edge the  courtesy  with  which  both  the  personal  inquiries 
of  its  representative  while  in  Salt  Lake  City,  and  subse- 
quent written  communications,  have  been  responded  to  by 
the  President  and  Board  of  Regents,  by  the  dismissed 
members  of  the  Faculty,  those  who  have  resigned,  and  others 
concerned. 

The  undersigned  have  been  appointed  by  the  President 
of  the  American  Association  of  University  Professors  a 
committee  to  examine  this  evidence  and  to  present  findings 
in  accordance  with  it.  Of  the  members  of  the  Committee, 
Messrs.  Seligman,  Fetter  and  Lichtenberger  represent  the 
Joint  Committee  on  Academic  Freedom,  constituted  in  1914 
by  the  American  Economic  Association,  the  American  Politi- 
cal Science  Association,  and  the  American  Sociological 
Society;  and  they  act  in  this  case  with  the  authorization  of 
that  body.  Mr.  Warren  similarly  represents  the  Committee 
on  the  Academic  Status  of  Psychology  of  the  American 
Psychological  Association.  The  remaining  members  of  the 
Committee  are  appointed  from  the  general  membership  of 
the  Association  of  University  Professors. 

The  report  following  is  intended  primarily  to  present, 
not  a  narrative  of  the  incidents  which  have  recently  oc- 
curred at  the  University  of  Utah,  but  an  analysis  of  the 
various  conditions  and  administrative  methods  at  the  Uni- 
versity which  affect,  or  have  been  alleged  to  affect,  the 
status,  the  educational  work,  or  the  professional  or  personal 
rights,  of  the  members  of  its  faculty.  Of  these  conditions 
and  methods  the  Committee  has  judged  chiefly  in  the  light 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH  7 

of  official  acts  prior  to  or  immediately  following  March  18; 
but  it  presents  its  findings  in  a  topical  order,  and  not  in 
the  chronological  order  of  those  acts.  The  Committee 
regrets  that  it  has  been  obliged  to  enter  into  so  much  detail 
in  the  citation  and  analysis  of  evidence,  especially  in  con- 
nection with  some  incidents  which  would,  apart  from  their 
relation  to  the  case  as  a  whole,  possess  little  public  interest. 
The  case,  however,  is  one  of  considerable  complexity,  and 
it  is  further  complicated  by  apparent  conflicts  in  the  testi- 
mony with  reference  to  certain  material  questions  of  fact. 
In  these  circumstances,  it  has  appeared  advisable  to  set 
forth  all  of  the  essential  evidence,  so  that  readers  of  this 
report  may  be  qualified  to  form  their  own  judgment  as  to 
the  truth  of  the  matter. 


I.  TENURE  OF  OFFICE 

1 .  Term  of  Appointments.  All  appointments  to  the  Fac- 
ulty of  the  University  are  for  the  term  of  one  year  and,  in 
accordance  with  the  following  section  of  the  Compiled 
Laws  of  Utah,  may  be  terminated  at  the  will  of  the  Board 
of  Regents  even  before  the  expiration  of  that  term: 

All  contracts  hereafter  made  with  professors,  instructors,  or 
employes,  whether  for  a  definite  or  indefinite  time,  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  termination  at  the  will  of  the  Board,  or  of  its  Executive 
Committee,  if  the  Board  be  not  in  session,  when  the  interests  of 
the  University  so  require.  (Section  2300.) 

The  Committee  is,  however,  informed  by  the  Board  of 
Regents  that  the  power  of  terminating  contracts  conferred 
by  this  statute  has  never  been  exercised.  With  regard  to 
the  policy  and  past  practice  of  the  University  in  the  matter 
of  reappointments,  the  following  question  has  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  Board  of  Regents:  "Is  there,  in  the  case  of 
professors  in  the  University  of  Utah,  a  definite  presump- 
tion of  continuous  reappointment  after  a  certain  number 
of  years  of  satisfactory  service?"  The  Board  answers: 

While  there  has  been  no  distinct  and  definite  rule,  it  has  gen- 
erally been  understood  that  there  was  a  presumption  of  con- 
tinuous reappointment  after  a  number  of  years  of  satisfactory 
service.  A  number  of  years  ago  a  schedule  was  arranged  under 
which,  after  a  certain  number  of  years  of  service,  salaries  were 
increased  from  time  to  time  and  promotions  in  grade  given.  We 
deem  it  better,  however,  to  state  exact  facts  and  practice. 

The  Board  accordingly  reviews  the  records  of  the  Faculty 
since  1878,  and  concludes: 

From  the  above  data  it  will  be  seen  that  during  nearly  forty 
years  only  eight  professors  have  failed  of  renomination,  and  of 
these,  four  failed  because  of  friction  between  the  professors  them- 
selves, making  it  imperative  that  the  University  should  dispense 
with  the  services  of  one  or  both  of  the  disputants. 

8 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH 

2.  Official  Grounds  for  Dismissal*  In  any  attempt  to 
judge  of  the  conditions  of  professorial  service  in  a  uni- 
versity, it  is  manifestly  important  to  know  what  are  offi- 
cially regarded  as  pertinent  and  sufficient  grounds  for  dis- 
missal. There  appear  to  be  at  the  University  of  Utah  no 
statutes  or  permanent  regulations  of  the  governing  board 
defining  these  grounds.  They  are  determined  in  individual 
cases  by  the  judgment  of  the  President  and  Board  of  Regents 
holding  office  at  the  time;  and  may  be  diversely  determined 
at  different  times.  In  this  sense,  the  government  of  this 
University,  like  that  of  many  others  in  America,  is  a  gov- 
ernment of  men  and  not  of  laws.  The  acts  or  utterances 
which  are  by  the  present  administration  of  the  University 
treated  as  among  just  causes  for  dismissal  are  indicated  by 
the  recommendations  made  by  President  Kingsbury,  and 
adopted  by  the  Board  of  Regents,  on  March  17.  On  this 
date,  President  Kingsbury,  besides  recommending  that  two 
instructors,  Messrs.  Snow  and  Bing,  be  not  reappointed, 
also  recommended  the  dismissal  of  two  associate  professors, 
Messrs.  Knowlton  and  Wise,  and  stated  the  charges  against 
these  professors  as  follows: 

1st.  Dr.  A.  A.  Knowlton.  The  following  are  the  reasons  why 
I  do  not  nominate  Dr.  A.  A.  Knowlton  for  re-employment:  I 
am  convinced  that  Dr.  Knowlton  has  worked  against  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  University.  Dr.  Knowlton  has  also  spoken  very 
disrespectfully  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Regents.  My 
opinion  is  that  respect  is  due  the  Regents,  especially  their  presid- 
ing officer,  from  the  Faculty,  and  that  therefore  the  author  of 
such  remarks  should  not  be  retained  in  the  employment  of  the 
University. 

2d.  Associate  Professor  George  C.  Wise.  I  cannot  recommend 
Prof.  George  C.  Wise  for  re-employment  in  the  University  for 
reasons  as  follows:  I  am  convinced  that  Professor  Wise  has 

*  The  term  "dismissal"  is  used  in  the  following,  for  the  sake  of  brevity, 
to  designate  a  refusal  of  reappointment  to  any  member  of  the  Faculty 
above  the  grade  of  instructor.  As  instructors  in  other  colleges  frequently 
hold  only  one-year  appointments,  a  refusal  to  reappoint  teachers  of  this 
rank  at  the  University  of  Utah  cannot  be  regarded  as  necessarily  equiva- 
lent to  a  dismissal. 


10     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

spoken  in  a  depreciatory  way  about  the  University  before  his 
classes,  and  that  he  has  also  spoken  in  a  very  uncomplimentary 
way  about  the  administration. 

The  four  following  acts  are  therefore  regarded  by  Presi- 
dent Kingsbury  as  among  the  proper  grounds  for  public 
charges,  followed  by  dismissal:  (a)  " speaking  in  a. very 
uncomplimentary  way  about  the  administration ;"  (b) 
"speaking  very  disrespectfully  of  the  Chairman  of  the 
Board  of  Regents;"  (c)  " speaking  in  a  depreciatory  way  of 
the  University  before  classes;"  (d)  "working  against  the 
administration."  The  last  mentioned  charge  appears  to  the 
Committee  to  be  of  a  greater  significance  than  the  first 
three,  and  is  dealt  with  separately  below,  under  the  head 
of  "Truth  of  Principal  Charge."  With  regard  to  the  other 
three  charges,  the  Committee  has  attempted  to  ascertain 
more  precisely  the  nature  and  occasions  of  the  expressions 
used  by  Messrs.  Wise  and  Knowlton,  which  are  set  down  by 
the  President  as  reasons  for  dismissing  these  professors. 

(a)  President  Kingsbury  was  asked  to  inform  the  Com- 
mittee as  to  the  nature  of  Mr.  Wise's  uncomplimentary 
references  to  the  University  administration,  and  to  state 
whether  these  references  were  made  in  private  conversa- 
tion or  on  a  public  occasion.  Dr.  Kingsbury  replies  that 
the  expressions  complained  of  were  "statements  as  to  the 
unfitness  of  the  President  for  his  position;"  and  that  "it 
is  not  claimed  that  the  uncomplimentary  references  were 
made  in  public,  but  they  were  made  freely  and  without 
reserve."  Mr.  Wise,  however,  states  that  he  never  cate- 
gorically declared  Dr.  Kingsbury  to  be  unfit  for  his  position, 
though  he  has  in  private  talk  made  criticisms  of  the  Presi- 
dent and  of  several  of  his  official  acts  and  policies.  "In 
departmental  matters,"  Mr.  Wise  writes,  "I  have  frequently 
differed  from  Dr.  Kingsbury.  I  have  opposed  the  policy 
which  regulated  the  number  of  teachers  by  the  plans  of  the 
President  of  the  University  and  not  by  the  number  of 
students  to  be  helped.  Another  'policy'  I  have  fought  is 
that  of  keeping  Germanics  and  Romance  in  one  depart- 
ment." Mr.  Wise  adds  that  once,  in  reply  to  a  question 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        11 

from  a  group  of  students  after  a  lecture,  he  said  that  in  his 
judgment  a  political  meeting  of  a  student  club,  which  had 
been  forbidden  by  the  President,  should  have  been  allowed. 
Mr.  Wise,  declares,  however,  that  on  this  occasion  he 
"  cautioned  the  students  against  being  hasty  in  their  judg- 
ment of  the  President,  adding  that  he  probably  knew  just 
what  he  was  doing/7  and  suggesting  that  the  laws  of  Utah 
possibly  made  the  President's  action  inevitable.  Mr.  Wise 
further  states: 

I  have  in  many  instances  defended  and  praised  Dr.  Kingsbury, 
both  privately  and  publicly,  in  classes  and  elsewhere.  Until 
this  alleged  "breach"  our  relations  have  been  in  general,  so  far 
as  I  know,  friendly  and  pleasant. 

(b)  Professor  Knowlton  writes: 

The  charge  of  disrespect  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of 
Regents  has  been  made  specific,  and  is  that  on  certain  occasions 
in  private  conversation  I  said:  " Isn't  it  too  bad  that  we  have  a 
man  like  that  as  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Regents!"  or  words 
to  that  effect.  It  has  been  specifically  denied  that  there  was 
any  objection  to  the  form  of  the  remark.* 

With  reference  to  this  charge  the  following  question  was 
submitted  to  President  Kingsbury: 

One  of  the  two  reasons  given  for  the  dismissal  of  Professor 
Knowlton  is  that  he  "has  spoken  very  disrespectfully  of  the 
Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Regents."  Professor  Knowlton  has 
publicly  declared  that  he  had  not  spoken  in  this  manner,  beyond 
expressing  an  unfavorable  opinion  of  the  qualifications  of  the 
Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Regents  for  the  position  he  holds; 
and  that  this  opinion  was  expressed  only  in  a  private  conversa- 
tion. Does  President  Kingsbury  deny  these  statements  of  Pro- 
fessor Knowlton's? 

President  Kingsbury 's  reply  was  in  the  negative.  It  is 
clear  also  from  another  of  President  Kingsbury's  answers! 

*  Signed  statement  in  The  Utah  Survey,  April,  1915. 

t  "Before  the  statement  was  made  to  the  Board  of  Regents,  the  President 
brought  Dr.  Knowlton  and  the  person  to  whom  the  remarks  were  first 
made.  The  circumstances  under  which  the  remarks  were  made  were  gone 
over  and  the  remarks,  as  charged,  were  repeated  to  Dr.  Knowlton,  and  he 
did  not  make  a  denial  of  them." 


12     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

that  the  charge  referred  to  remarks  made  on  one  occasion 
to  one  person,  who,  the  Committee  is  informed,  was  a 
member  of  the  University  faculty. 

(c)  The  charge  that  Mr.  Wise  "  spoke  in  a  depreciatory 
way  of  the  University  before  classes"  is  thus  amplified  by 
President  Kingsbury  in  his  statement  to  the  Committee: 

Professor  Wise,  by  repeated  unfavorable  comparisons  of  the 
University  of  Utah  with  other  institutions,  depreciated  its  value 
to  the  students  and  made  some  of  them  dissatisfied  with  the  Uni- 
versity, and  others  became  dissatisfied  with  his  teaching  in  con- 
sequence. Professor  Wise  persisted  in  making  these  unfavorable 
comparisons  even  after  his  attention  had  been  called  to  their 
bad  results.  Shortly  before  the  President  decided  not  to  recom- 
mend him  for  re-employment,  a  certain  professor  in  the  University 
entered  an  indignant  protest  against  Professor  Wise's  teachings, 
declaring  that  he  was  continually  destroying,  in  the  minds  of  the 
students,  that  confidence  in  their  University  which  he  and  other 
professors  were  trying  to  build  up. 

Mr.  Wise  has  been  informed  of  this  amplification  of  the 
charge  against  him.  He  affirms  in  reply  that  criticisms  of 
the  University  on  his  part  were  neither  habitual  nor  deroga- 
tory, and  that  they  were  always  constructive  in  purpose. 
He  writes  further: 

The  discussions  of  the  University  before  classes  were  "frequent" 
during  the  comparatively  short  time  when  second-year  German 
and  French  classes  were  studying  German  and  French  institutions 
of  learning,  but  in  respect  to  the  remaining  time,  and  to  other 
classes,  they  were  decidedly  not  frequent.  These  discussions,  the 
alleged  "depreciation,"  have  always  been  suggested  by  the  texts 
studied  and  have  frequently  been  started  by  the  students  them- 
selves. 

Mr.  Wise  states  that  he  believes  this  charge  to  have  been 
based  chiefly  upon  the  following  incident:  One  day  early 
in  1913,  in  reply  to  a  direct  question  from  a  student  in  the 
course  of  a  class  -discussion,  he  expressed  the  opinion  that 
the  educational  standing  of  the  University  of  Utah  was 
inferior  to  that  of  such  a  University  as  Yale,  and  between 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        13 

that  of  Colorado  and  that  of  Nevada.  "I  did  not  forget 
to  add,"  says  Mr.  Wise,  "that  in  this  respect  Utah  was 
improving  rapidly."  The  incident  was  evidently  reported 
by  some  student  or  students,  and  brought  to  the  notice  of 
the  President.  " Shortly  after,"  writes  Mr.  Wise,  "I  was 
called  to  the  President's  office  on  account  of  this  discussion. 
Upon  criticism  from  the  President,  I  refused  to  recant 
without  a  statement  from  him  that  I  was  wrong.  This 
statement  he  did  not  make,  and  the  matter  dropped." 
"During  my  eleven  years  of  service  here,"  Professor  Wise 
declares,  "I  have  habitually  and  constantly  praised  the 
University.  This  academic  year  I  have  been  sent  out  by 
the  University  authorities  as  a  lecturer  from  the  institution; 
this  has  been  the  case  since  1912." 

The  Committee  has  also  received  letters  from  thirteen 
students  or  recent  graduates  of  the  University,  members 
of  Professor  Wise's  classes  during  the  past  three  years;  all 
testify  that  they  have  never  heard  him  "depreciate  the 
University."  Mr.  W.  J.  McCoy  writes: 

I  completed  two  years  of  college  work  in  German  under  Dr. 
Wise.  Some  of  this  work  was  done  in  small  sized  extension  classes 
where  I  had  every  opportunity  in  the  world  to  "draw  him  out," 
and  I  assert  that  I  never  heard  him  utter  a  disloyal  sentiment 
towards  Dr.  Kingsbury,  nor  in  any  way  depreciate  the  University. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  have  often  heard  him  predict  great  things 
for  the  University  of  Utah. 

Miss  Ethel  S.  Chance  writes: 

During  the  current  year  I  have  been  a  regular  student  in  Pro- 
fessor Wise's  class  room.  I  have  never  heard  him  speak  depre- 
ciatingly of  the  University,  nor  have  I  known  a  single  student  to 
&ay  that  he  did.  His  whole  attitude  towards  his  classes  tends  to 
the  raising  of  standards  of  scholarship,  and  can  in  no  manner 
lessen  the  affection  students  feel  towards  their  Alma  Mater. 

Mr.  La  Mar  Nelson  of  the  present  senior  class  writes : 

Professor  Wise  has  occasionally  drawn  comparisons  between 
European  universities  and  American  universities.  He  has  praised 


14     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

the  good  points  of  American  schools  and  methods  of  education, 
and  has  been  free  and  outspoken  hi  his  depreciation  of  the  weak 
points.  Some  of  these  criticisms,  of  course,  were  applicable  to 
our  own  University.  The  criticisms,  too,  were  constructive 
always.  I  know  of  no  comment  among  the  students  or  faculty 
members  of  the  University  as  a  result  of  these  statements  and 
criticisms. 

The  other  letters  from  recent  students  are  similar  in 
tenor. 

The  Dean  of  the  College  of  Arts  and  Sciences,  Professor 
Cummings,  writes: 

Professor  Wise  has  ever  worked  faithfully  and  earnestly  for 
the  upbuilding  of  the  institution.  I  have  never  heard  any  state- 
ment from  him,  or  any  statement  quoted  from  him,  that  would 
seem  to  indicate  disloyalty.  The  only  things  that  have  come 
to  me  pointing  in  that  direction  are  a  hint  from  the  President 
early  hi  the  present  school  year,  and  an  occasional  statement 
from  students  on  circumstances  occurring  in  class,  when  Pro- 
fessor Wise  had  evidently  spoken  of  some  weakness,  as  it  seemed 
to  him,  in  the  institution,  to  arouse  the  students  to  discussion 
and  make  them  interested  citizens  hi  their  university  world.  In 
the  former  instance,  President  Kingsbury  spoke  to  me  in  his 
office  one  day  regarding  the  severe  criticism  of  the  work  of  the 
School  of  Arts  and  Sciences  by  members  of  the  faculty  and  by  the 
public.  On  my  several-times  repeated  request  to  know  the  source 
of  that  criticism,  the  President  said  as  I  was  about  to  leave  the 
office,  "You'd  better  talk  with  Professor  Wise.  I  just  suggest 
that."  During  our  conversation,  I  had  said  to  President  Kings- 
bury  that  I  did  not  think  we  should  spend  our  time  and  energy 
considering  criticisms  that  were  general  and  indefinite,  and  brought 
by  people  who  were  unwilling  to  come  out  into  the  open,  espe- 
cially when  he  and  I  knew  those  criticisms  to  be  unjust  and  un- 
warranted. I  have  found  no  good  grounds  for  considering  Pro- 
fessor Wise  disloyal  or  unjust  in  his  criticism  of  the  institution. 

Dean  Holman  deposes  that  "he  is,  and  has  been,  ac- 
quainted with  many  students  who  have  pursued  courses 
of  study  under  Professor  Wise;  that  he  has  known  some  of 
these  students  intimately,  and  often  talked  with  them  about 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        15 

their  University  work;  that,  until  after  March  first,  1915, 
he  never  heard  it  reported  either  by  students  or  by  Faculty 


ERRATA 
Page  11,  Second  note,  line  2:  After  "brought"  insert  "together." 


P.  18 
P.  24,' 
P.  25, 
P.  28. 
P.  29, 
P.  35, 
P.  35, 
P.  37, 
P.  38, 
P.  41, 
P.  42, 
42, 


45, 

46, 
47, 


48, 
48, 
P.  53, 
P.  60, 
P.  62, 


note,  next  to  last  line:  For  "discuss"  read  "dismiss.' 
5  from  bottom:  For  "assertions"  read  "assertion." 
.  4:  For  "charges"  read  "charge." 
Omit  the  first  three  lines  of  "Answer.1' 
13:  For  "Kingsbury"  read  "Knowlton." 
17  from  bottom:  For  "the"  read  "three." 

16  from  bottom:  For  "has"  read  "had." 

2  from  bottom:  For  "appears"  read  "appear," 
14  from  bottom:  Insert  "that"  after  "and." 

3  from  bottom:  For  "denied"  read  "defined." 

4  from  top:  For  "communications"  read  "communication." 
2  from  bottom:  For  "attitudes"  read  "attitude." 

ast  line:  Insert  "has"  after  "Regents." 

17  from  top:  Insert  "the"  after  "to." 

12:  Insert  "(b)"  at  beginning  of  paragraph. 

7:  For  "3"  read  "(c)." 

16:  For  "allegations"  read  "allegation." 

For  "consultations"  read  "consultation." 

For  "professional"  read  "professorial." 

For  "disclosure,"  read  "discourse." 


63, 

69, 

72, 
72, 
78, 


P.  80, 


17: 
14: 
13: 


1:  After  "oration"  insert  comma,  followed  by  "whatever  its 


limitatio  s  in  thought  and  taste,"  and  delete  this  phrase  from  line  2. 


8  from  bottom:  Semi-colon  after  "University." 

9;  Omit  "III"  at  beginning  of  paragraph. 

9:  Comma  after  "favoring." 

10:  Comma  after  "of." 

18:  Insert  marks  of  quotation  after  "Faculty." 

1:  Insert  "was"  after  "and." 


to  university  faculties  in  America. 


14     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

the  good  points  of  American  schools  and  methods  of  education, 
and  has  been  free  and  outspoken  in  his  depreciation  of  the  weak 


these  students  intimately,  and  often  talked  with  them  about 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        15 

their  University  work;  that,  until  after  March  first,  1915, 
he  never  heard  it  reported  either  by  students  or  by  Faculty 
members  that  Professor  Wise  had  spoken  unfavorably  of 
the  University  or  otherwise  criticized  it  detrimentally;  and 
that  he  had  made  inquiry  of  students  and  faculty  members, 
and  so  far  as  he  is  informed  and  knows,  the  charge  of  un- 
favorable criticism  is  made  now  only  by  persons  who  are 
attempting  to  justify  the  recent  action  of  the  University 
of  Utah  administration."  Other  colleagues  of  Professor 
Wise  give  similar  testimony. 

This  concludes  the  evidence  which  the  Committee  pre- 
sents as  to  the  specific  meaning  of  the  first  three  charges, 
and  as  to  the  circumstances  under  which  Professors  Knowl- 
ton  and  Wise  employed  the  expressions  upon  which  Presi- 
dent Kingsbury  based  his  recommendation  that  the  con- 
nection of  these  professors  with  the  University  of  Utah 
be  terminated. 

The  Committee  conceives  it  to  be  scarcely  needful  to 
say  that  it  regards  neither  of  the  first  two  charges  as  pre- 
senting any  proper  ground  for  the  dismissal  of  University 
teachers.  On  the  other  hand,  it  seems  to  the  Committee 
to  be  a  wholly  unwarrantable  extension  of  official  authority, 
that  the  President  and  the  Chairman  of  the  governing 
board  of  a  state-supported  institution  should  publicly  an- 
nounce, or  permit  it  to  be  announced,  that  unfavorable 
judgments  of  their  qualifications  for  office  may  be  uttered 
by  professors  in  private  conversation  only  on  peril  of  dis- 
missal. In  particular,  that  charge  (b)  should  have  been 
brought  against  Professor  Knowlton,  appears  to  indicate 
the  existence  of  a  highly  undesirable  condition  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Utah.  It  means  that  casual  expressions  uttered 
in  informal  talk  with  a  colleague,  repeated  by  him,  and 
carried  by  gossip  to  the  ears  of  the  President  and  of  the 
official  criticised,  may  become  the  basis  of  public  charges 
leading  to  a  loss  of  position.  The  law  of  lese-majestt  can 
not  with  advantage,  in  the  Committee's  opinion,  be  applied 
to  university  faculties  in  America. 


16     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

That  an  abstention  from  such  remarks  as  that  made  by 
Professor  Knowlton  will,  so  long  as  Dr.  Kingsbury  is  Presi- 
dent, be  regarded  by  him  as  among  the  conditions  of  the 
tenure  of  professorships  in  the  University  of  Utah,  is  indi- 
cated by  the  President's  reply  to  the  following  question: 

Does  the  expression  in  private  conversation  of  an  unfavorable 
opinion  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  seem  to  President  Kings- 
bury  a  proper  ground  for  dismissing  or  otherwise  disciplining  a 
university  professor? 

Answer:  Should  a  very  disrespectful  remark  be  made  against 
an  official,  as  was  the  case  here,  and  it  should  become  generally 
known,  it  would  very  properly  become  a  strong  factor  against  the 
reemployment  of  such  a  professor. 

With  regard  to  the  charge  of  "  depreciating  the  Univer- 
sity before  students/'  brought  against  Professor  Wise,  the 
Committee  considers  that  such  expressions,  if  exaggerated, 
habitual,  and  flippant  or  malignant  in  tone,  might  conceiv- 
ably give  ground  for  the  dismissal  of  a  University  teacher. 
The  Committee  does  not,  however,  find  it  to  be  established 
by  the  evidence  that  Professor  Wise's  remarks  upon  the 
educational  status  of  the  University,  or  his  comparisons  of  it 
with  other  institutions,  exceeded  the  limits  of  legitimate,  or 
even  desirable,  criticism,  or  that  they  were  animated  by 
any  other  motive  than  zeal  for  the  improvement  of  the 
University. 

It  is  to  be  noted — as  bearing  upon  the  question  of  the 
adequacy  of  the  reasons  for  the  resignations  of  professors— 
that  the  pertinency  of  all  the  grounds  for  dismissal  given  by 
the  President  was  apparently  affirmed  by  the  Board  of 
Regents  in  its  "Public  Statement"  of  March  17.  It  is  true 
that  the  Board  gave  as  its  actual  reason  for  sustaining  the 
recommendations,  not  the  charges  upon  which  they  were 
based,  but  the  allegation  that  there  was  "such  a  serious 
breach  between  the  President  on  one  side,  and  Dr.  Knowl- 
ton and  Professor  Wise  on  the  other,  that  one  or  the  other 
must  go."  (This  allegation  the  Committee  will  examine 
hereafter).  But  the  Board  at  the  same  tune  made  it  clear 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH         17 

that,  apart  from  this  consideration,  "it  would,  were  it 
necessary,  adopt  the  President's  recommendations  on  the 
above  grounds  alone," — i.e.,  on  the  grounds  given  by  the 
President  himself.*  And  in  vindication  of  the  legitimacy  of 
dismissal  upon  such  grounds  as  these,  the  Board  presented 
in  its  "Public  Statement"  a  (to  the  Committee)  novel  con- 
ception of  the  meaning  of  "freedom  of  speech."  The  pas- 
sage is  of  sufficient  interest  to  quote  at  length : 

It  is  argued  to  the  Board  that  professors  and  instructors  should 
have  the  right  of  free  thought,  free  speech,  and  free  action.  This 
cannot  be  and  is  not  questioned.  The  Board,  however,  has  the 
same  rights.  These  privileges  are  reciprocal.  When  the  rights 
of  the  two  clash,  then  it  is  for  the  Board  to  determine  which  is 
right  and  which  course  serves,  or  is  inimical  to,  the  best  interests 
of  the  University.  Some  one  must  have  the  right  and  respon- 
sibility to  decide  such  matters,  and  the  law  has  vested  it  in  the 
Board.  Professor  Wise,  for  instance,  has  seen  fit  to  belittle  the 
University,  and  to  speak  in  an  uncomplimentary  way  about  the 
administration.  That  is  his  privilege.  It  is  also  the  right  and 
privilege  of  the  President  and  Board  to  say  that  his  course  is 
wrong  and  refuse  longer  to  employ  him.  Professor  Wise  may 
then  go  to  another  institution  and  State  where  his  views  and  those 
of  the  governing  board  may  coincide,  if  there  is  any  place  where 
an  employe  is  permitted  to  belittle  the  institution  that  employs 
him  and  to  criticize  its  management  unjustly. 

What  has  just  been  said  applies  also  to  Dr.  Knowlton,  who 
has  seen  fit  to  speak  very  disrespectfully,  if  not  insultingly,  of 
the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Regents.  From  his  standpoint, 
this  doubtless  means  that  he  has  exercised  his  inalienable  rights 
of  freje  thought,  free  speech  and  free  action.  But  the  President 
and  the  Board  also  have  an  equal  right  to  free  thought,  free 
speech  and  free  action,  with  the  result  that  the  President  and 
Board  do  not  agree  with  Dr.  Knowlton's  sentiments;  he  may 
hereafter  find  an  institution  and  State  where  similar  sentiments 
against  the  presiding  officer  of  the  governing  board  may  be  ap- 
proved. If  so,  that  is  where  he  belongs.! 

*  "Public  Statement,"  page  4. 

t  "Public  Statement,"  pp.  9-10.  The  Board  later  adds:  "At  the  same 
time  the  President  and  Board  concede  to  professors  and  instructors  the  per- 
fect right  and  freedom  to  make  healthy  and  judicious  criticism  of  the 


18     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

It  is  evident  from  this  passage  that  the  "freedom  of 
speech"  (even  in  private  conversation)  assured  to  teachers 
iri  the  University  of  Utah  is  officially  defined  as  freedom  to 
express  sentiments  in  agreement  with  those  of  the  President 
and  the  Regents,  or  to  seek  employment  elsewhere.  The 
Committee  is  unable  to  feel  surprise  that  the  publication  of 
this  "Statement"  was  immediately  followed  by  the  resigna- 
tion of  a  number  of  members  of  the  faculty. 

3.  Procedure  in  Dismissal.  From  the  question  of  the 
nature  of  the  grounds  for  dismissal  the  Committee  turns  to 
examine  the  procedure  followed  by  officers  of  this  University 
in  making  dismissals;  and,  in  particular,  to  inquire  whether 
teachers  in  the  institution  are  guaranteed  a  fair  trial 
before  removal  upon  charges. 

(a)  The  Committee  has  laid  before  the  Board  of  Re- 
gents, first,  the  general  question  whether  the  right  to  a 
hearing  before  dismissal  is  recognized  in  the  case  of  profes- 
sors in  the  University  of  Utah.  The  answers  of  the  ma- 
jority and  the  minority  of  the  Board  are  subjoined. 

Question:  Is  it  the  understanding  of  the  Regents  that  they 
may  at  any  time  refuse  to  reappoint  a  professor,  without  specific 
charges  against  him  and  without  a  hearing? 

Answer  (Majority  reply):  Yes.  However,  we  deem  it  better  to 
state  the  facts  and  practice  ...  In  practice,  reasons  have 
been  uniformly  given  the  person  affected,  and  a  hearing,  if  one 
were  desired,  except,  as  we  now  recall,  in  the  case  of  one  person 
only,  as  to  whom  it  was  considered  by  the  Board  to  be  for  the  best 
interests  of  the  University  and  of  the  professor  concerned  not  to 
grant  a  hearing. 

Board  of  Regents,  the  President,  the  Faculty,  the  University  and  every- 
thing connected  with  or  related  to  its  management,  and  the  President  and 
Board  retain  the  same  right  and  freedom  to  think  and  act  within  their 
respective  spheres."  The  Cohiniittee  does  not  find  in  this  sentence  any- 
thing which  alters  or  modifies  the  practical  import  of  the  passage  above 
cited,  inasmuch  as  the  "freedom  to  act  within  its  sphere,"  reserved  to  the 
Board,  appears  to  be  that  indicated  in  the  previous  passage — freedom  to 
discuss  professors  "with  whose  sentiments  the  President  and  Board  do  not 
agree." 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        19 

Answer  (Minority  reply):  The  Board  of  Regents  has  taken  the 
position  that  it  may  at  any  time  refuse  to  reappoint  a  professor 
without  receiving  specific  charges  against  him  and  without  a  hear- 
ing. 

The  minority  members  add  that  they  do  not  concur  in 
this  policy.  Both  answers  indicate  that  the  right  of  pro- 
fessors to  a  hearing  before  dismissal  is  not  recognized  in 
principle  in  this  University.  It  is  not  clear  whether  the 
statement  of  the  majority  answer  as  to  the  past  practice 
in  the  matter  is  intended  by  the  Board  to  cover  the  cases 
recently  brought  before  it.  The  Board,  however,  insists, 
in  the  course  of  its  answers  to  other  questions,  that  Messrs. 
Knowlton  and  Wise  "were  afforded  an  opportunity  to  be 
heard." 

(b)  Before  considering  the  question  whether  the  privilege 
of  a  fair  trial  upon  the  charges  was,  in  fact,  offered  the  pro- 
fessors accused,  the  Committee  notes  the  procedure  employed 
by  the  President,  and  also  by  the  Board,  in  the  matter 
of  the  verification  of  the  principal  and  only  significant  charge 
against  Professor  Knowlton — that  of  "  working  against  the 
administration.7'  The  Committee  finds  it  to  be  established 
by  the  evidence,*  and,  indeed,  not  denied  by  the  representa- 
tives of  the  University  administration,  that  President  Kings- 
bury  accepted  as  true,  without  investigation,  the  secret  state- 
ments of  private  informants ;  that  he  at  no  time  permitted  the 
professor  concerned  to  know  the  names  of  his  accusers  or  the 
nature  of  the  specific  acts  of  which  he  was  accused ;  that  the 
President  laid  the  charge  before  the  Regents,  and  also  pub- 
lished it,  after  receiving  an  absolute  denial  of  the  truth  of  it 
from  Dr.  Knowlton,  and  without  examining  the  other  evi- 
dence offered  him  as  proof  of  the  falsity  of  the  charge;  and 
that  the  Board  of  Regents  adopted  the  President's  recom- 
mendation for  the  dismissal  of  this  professor,  without  know- 
ing the  source  of  the  principal  accusation  against  him  or 

*  Written  statements  and  replies  to  questions  by  Professor  Knowlton, 
oral  statement  of  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Regents,  written  reply  of 
minority  of  Board,  cited  below. 


20     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

the  nature  of  the  evidence  upon  which  it  was  based.  It  is 
manifest,  therefore,  that  whatever  the  facts  as  to  the  truth 
of  this  charge  against  Professor  Knowlton,  neither  the  Presi- 
dent nor  the  Board  took  any  just  and  adequate  measures  to 
ascertain  whether  or  not  it  was  true. 

(c)  So  far  as  the  Board  is  concerned,  it  explains  this 
procedure  on  the  ground  that  the  dismissals  were  not  di- 
rectly based  upon  the  charges,  but  upon  the  fact  that  there 
existed  an  "irreparable  breach"  between  the  President  and 
the  professors  whose  dismissal  he  recommended;  and  that, 
therefore,  the  Board  had  no  occasion  to  inquire  as  to  the 
character  of  the  evidence  behind  the  President's  charges,  or 
even  as  to  the  pertinency  of  those  charges  as  grounds  for 
dismissal.  The  Board  informs  this  Committee  that: 

The  President  stated  to  the  Regents  and  to  a  Committee  prior 
to  the  meeting  of  March  17,  1915,  that  if  the  Board  considered  it 
best  to  retain  Dr.  Knowlton  and  Associate  Professor  Wise,  he, 
President  Kingsbury,  would  submit  his  resignation;  that  he  would 
not  remain  as  President  with  Dr.  Knowlton  and  Professor  Wise, 
or  either  of  them,  on  the  instructing  force.  At  the  meeting  of 
the  Regents  on  March  17,  this  status  of  affairs  was  known  by  the 
Board. 

In  such  circumstances,  the  Board  has  publicly  declared, 
"it  is  not  concerned  with  the  question  who  is  right  and  who 
is  wrong  in  this  disagreement,  but  is  concerned  only  with  the 
question  as  to  whose  services  it  considers  the  more  valuable 
to  the  University."* 

The  Board,  being  of  the  opinion  that  Dr.  Kingsbury 's  serv- 
ices were  more  valuable  than  those  of  Messrs.  Knowlton 
and  Wise,  and  being  now  presumably  of  the  opinion  that  his 
services  are  more  valuable  than  those  of  the  seventeen  re- 
signing professors  and  instructors,  based  its  decision  upon 
this  consideration.  It  observes: 

Any  state,  religious,  business  or  other  organization,  must  have 
and  preserve  a  practical  working  organization,  or  fail;  when  fric- 

*  Letter  to  the  Salt  Lake  City  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  April  7, 
1915. 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        21 

tion  is  developed  to  a  serious  and  irreparable  point  it  must  be 
eradicated.  Investigations  to  ascertain  whether  the  superior 
officer  or  a  subordinate  is  most  to  blame  do  not  stop  friction.  In 
such  cases  the  only  practicable  course  is  to  remove  such  causes  of 
the  friction  as  are  deemed  least  valuable  to  the  work  of  the  organ- 
ization.* 

Upon  the  position  thus  assumed  by  the  Board,  the  Com- 
mittee makes  two  observations.  In  the  first  place,  if  the 
Board  felt  absolved  by  the  considerations  it  mentions  from 
the  obligation  to  make  any  genuine  inquiry  into  the  truth  of 
the  charges,  it  should  not  have  permitted  those  charges  to  be 
laid  before  it;  still  less  should  it  have  published  them,  and 
have  published  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  the  public  to 
suppose  that  the  Board  believed,  and  had  reason  to  believe, 
them  to  be  substantiated.  The  Board  did,  however,  print 
these  charges  in  its  "Public  Statement"  of  March  17;  and  it 
accompanied  them  with  the  following  comment: 

As  to  Dr.  Knowlton  and  Professor  Wise,  the  members  of  the 
Board  do  not  know  of  their  own  knowledge  as  to  the  truth  of  all 
the  facts  given  by  the  President  as  reasons  why  these  gentlemen 
were  not  renominated.  We  believe,  however,  from  the  statements 
and  facts  submitted  to  us,  that  the  President's  reasons  are  well 
founded;  and  were  it  necessary  the  Board  would  adopt  the  Pres- 
ident's recommendations  on  the  above  grounds  alone. 

It  was  clearly  incumbent  upon  the  Board  if,  as  was  the 
case,  it  had  taken  no  evidence,!  and  had  nothing  resembling 
proof,  as  to  the  truth  of  the  charge  of  disloyalty  against 
Professor  Knowlton,  to  state  the  fact  without  equivocation. 
The  Board  not  only  failed  to  do  this  in  its  "Public  State- 
ment," but  in  its  (majority)  reply  of  April  17  to  the  in- 
quiries of  this  Committee,  it  answers  in  the  affirmative  the 
question:  "Does  the  Board  of  Regents  still  maintain  the 

*  "Public  Statement,"  page  5. 

t  Reply  of  Minority  of  Board  of  Regents:  "Question:  Has  the  Board 
taken  evidence  as  to  the  truth  of  this  charge  (that  Professor  Knowlton  had 
worked  against  the  administration)?  Answer:  The  Board  has  not  taken 
evidence." 


22     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

charge  that  Dr.  Knowlton  had  worked  against  the  adminis- 
tration?" 

The  Committee  further  notes  that  the  Board  grounds  its 
acceptance  of  the  President's  recommendations  upon  a  gen- 
eral rule  of  policy,  viz.:  that  when  serious  "friction"  arises 
between  university  officials  and  teachers,  the  governing 
body  should  consider  only  the  past  and  the  inferential 
future  value  to  the  institution  of  the  services  of  the  persons 
concerned,  and  should  not  consider  the  question  "who  is 
right  and  who  is  wrong  in  the  disagreement."  The  func- 
tionary of  superior  value  should  be  retained,  the  others  re- 
moved. Though  this  rule  doubtless  has  some  plausibility, 
and  sometimes  appears  to  make  for  efficiency,  it  seems  to  the 
Committee,  as  a  principle  to  be  followed  in  University  ad- 
ministration, to  be  wholly  inadmissible.  The  Committee 
can  construe  the  Board's  repeated  public  enunciation  of  this 
principle  only  as  an  announcement  that  considerations  of 
equity  were  not  taken  account  of,  at  the  time  of  the  dismis- 
sals of  March  17,  and  that,  so  long  as  the  Board  adheres  to 
this  principle,  such  considerations  will  not  be  taken  account 
of,  in  cases  involving  the  relations  of  the  President  of  the 
University  and  the  faculty.  Such  a  rule  of  action  on  the 
part  of  a  governing  board  contains  the  potency  of  grave 
injury  to  the  institution  under  its  control,  not  less  than  of 
grave  injustice  to  individuals;  for  a  publicly  proclaimed  in- 
difference of  the  governing  body  to  the  question  of  justice 
as  between  individuals  is  sure  to  cause  damaging  resent- 
ments and  a  loss  of  public  confidence.  Just  how  effective 
this  rule  may  be,  as  a  means  of  "preserving  a  practical  work- 
ing organization,"  is  well  illustrated  by  the  present  condition 
of  the  University  of  Utah.  In  a  letter  published  April  14, 
1915,  the  Board  has  conceded  that,  through  the  resignations 
resulting  largely  from  its  adherence  to  this  rule,  the  Uni- 
versity has  been  deprived  of  the  services  of  a  number  of 
"  competent  men  whose  positions  it  may  possibly  be  difficult 
to  fill;"  and  it  remarks  that  the  Regents  are  "not  so  blind 
as  to  believe  that  the  University  will  not  suffer  because  of 
this  agitation."  The  University  and  the  educational  in- 
terests of  Utah  have  unquestionably  already  suffered  greatly 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        23 

from  the  consequences  of  the  Regents '  action  on  March  17. 
These  unhappy  consequences  are  chiefly  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  policy  of  disregarding  considerations  of  equity, 
and  of  heeding  only  considerations  of  'efficiency/*  does  not 
in  the  long  run  tend  to  the  efficient  working  of  any  organiza- 
tion of  human  beings.  It  is  certain  to  engender  far  more 
'friction7  than  it  allays;  it  is  not  permanently  effective  even 
in  the  management  of  workshops  or  business  houses.  Ap- 
plied in  the  government  of  universities,  it  is  the  sure 
beginning  of  disaster. 

(d)  The  above-mentioned  principle,  repeatedly  enunci- 
ated by  the  Board,  evidently  implies  that  an  investigation 
into  the  truth  of  the  charges  against  Messrs.  Knowlton  and 
Wise  would  have  been  irrelevant  to  the  consideration  upon 
which  the  Board  based  its  action.  The  Board  nevertheless 
(as  already  mentioned)  declares  in  its  statements  to  this 
Committee  that  the  opportunity  of  having  an  investigation 
was  offered  these  professors,  and  was  rej  ected  by  them.  The 
Board,  for  example,  was  asked  the  following  question: 
"Has  it  hitherto  been  the  policy  of  the  Board  of  Regents 
usually  to  sustain  recommendations  of  the  President  with- 
out inquiry,  even  when  these  recommendations  involve 
charges  against  professors?"  The  Board  replies: 

No,  not  even  in  one  instance  (except  as  above  noted), f  has  the 
policy  suggested  in  this  question  been  followed. 

*  It  would  appear,  indeed,  that  the  Board  was  prepared  to  sacrifice 
even  the  educational  efficiency  of  the  teaching  staff,  in  order  to  retain  the 
President  and  secure  a  faculty  in  harmony  with  him.  The  following  is  an 
extract  from  an  address  by  Regent  Van  Cott  before  the  Commercial  Club 
of  Salt  Lake  City:  " There  is  an  irreparable  breach  between  the  President 
and  the  resigned  members  of  the  Faculty  of  the  University.  In  order  to 
secure  the  best  results  in  the  work  of  the  institution,  it  is  necessary  that 
there  be  perfect  harmony  between  the  President  and  the  Faculty.  Other- 
wise, there  is  too  much  friction.  Now  the  President  has  been  a  faithful 
and  valuable  servant  of  the  University  for  twenty  years,  and  it  is  not  advis- 
able to  part  with  his  services.  It  is  better  to  secure  mediocre  instructors 
and  secure  harmony  than  to  get  the  best  and  most  efficient  professors  and 
not  secure  harmony." 

t  The  exception  referred  to  is,  as  the  context  shows,  not  the  case  of 
Professor  Knowlton  or  of  Professor  Wise,  but  one  occurring  in  a  previous 
year. 


24     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

In  reply  to  another  question  the  Board  remarks:  "We 
cannot  permit  you  to  infer  that  charges  against  professors 
have  not  heretofore  been  investigated.7'  And  it  elsewhere 
reiterates  that  "Dr.  Knowlton  and  Associate  Professor  Wise 
were  given  an  opportunity  to  be  heard." 

The  Committe  finds  that,  in  the  physiological  sense  of  the 
word  "heard,"  the  accused  professors  were,  in  fact,  given  an 
opportunity  to  be  heard.  Dr.  Knowlton,  for  example,  was 
apprised  in  writing  of  the  charges  against  him,  and  was  noti- 
fied to  appear  before  the  Board  at  its  meeting  of  March  17. 
He  on  that  date  sent  a  letter  to  the  President  which  was 
read  to  the  Board  at  its  meeting.  The  essential  parts  of 
this  letter  are  here  reproduced: 

You  write,  "I  am  convinced  that  you  have  worked  against  the 
administration  of  the  University."  I  assume  that  this  has  the 
same  meaning  as  your  statement  made  in  our  conversation  of 
March  1,  when  you  said,  "I  think  you  have  been  working  against 
me."  That  is,  I  understand  this  charge  to  involve  a  charge  of 
personal  loyalty  rather  than  of  loyalty  to  the  University.  My 
position  upon  this  point  is,  I  think,  made  sufficiently  clear  in  my 
letter  to  you  dated  March  1,  and  delivered  in  person  on  that  date. 
If  the  charge  that  I  have,  by  underhanded  means,  sought  to  un- 
dermine your  influence  and  secure  your  removal  as  president  of 
the  University,  is  true,  then  your  action  is  fully  justified.  This 
raises  a  question  of  fact  to  be  determined  by  evidence.  On  March 
1, 1  gave  you  a  letter  referring  you  to  several  men  of  good  stand- 
ing in  Salt  Lake  City,  who  were  in  a  position  to  speak  from  first 
hand  knowledge  of  my  attitude  toward  you.  On  March  3  you 
stated  in  reply  to  my  inquiry  that  you  had  not  sought  information 
from  any  of  these  men,  and  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  you  have 
not  done  so,  up  to  the  present  time,  although  you  have,  as  I  am 
informed,  been  in  communication  with  at  least  two  of  these  men 
on  other  matters. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  have  made  and  do  make  the  most  posi- 
tive and  unqualified  assertions  of  the  falsity  of  any  charges  of 
disloyalty  either  to  yourself  or  to  the  University,  and  I  have 
offered  you  positive  proof  that  on  certain  occasions  I  have  been 
your  loyal  supporter  and  defender.  You  have,  in  effect,  refused 
to  investigate  the  proof  offered.  Therefore,  if  my  dismissal  is  to 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        25 

be  based  upon  this  charge  of  disloyalty,  I  ask  that  the  Board  of 
Regents  make  a  full  and  searching  public  investigation  for  the 
purpose  of  establishing  the  truth  or  falsity  of  this  charge. 

With  regard  to  the  other  charges  against  him,  Mr. 
Knowlton  wrote : 

I  am  not  greatly  concerned  with  the  truth  or  falsity  of  this 
charge.  I  believe  that  in  such  a  private  conversation  I  had  a 
perfect  right  to  express  my  opinion  as  to  the  fitness  or  unfitness 
of  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Regents  for  his  position.  If  you, 
Mr.  President,  and  the  Board  of  Regents  wish  to  put  my  dismissal 
upon  the  ground  that  a  member  of  the  faculty  is  denied  the  right 
of  freedom  of  speech,  even  in  private  conversation,  I  am  most 
certainly  willing  that  you  should  do  so.  I,  for  one,  should  not 
care  to  remain  as  a  member  of  the  faculty  where  such  a  curtail- 
ment of  personal  rights  existed.  It  follows  that  if  the  Board  of 
Regents  cares  to  accept  this  as  a  material  reason  for  your  actions 
it  will  be  altogether  unnecessary  for  them  to  give  me  any  hearing 
upon  the  matter. 

Regarding  your  verbal  invitation  to  me  to  be  within  call  of  the 
Regents  at  their  meeting  tonight,  allow  me  to  make  the  following 
statement:  The  above  letter  outlines  my  position  and  desires.  I 
shall  welcome  the  most  careful  and  searching  public  investigation 
of  any  specific  charges  upon  the  matter  of  disloyalty,  but  I  do  not 
see  that  any  good  could  come  of  my  meeting  the  Board  under 
conditions  such  as  would  exist  tonight.  Whenever  the  Board  is 
ready  to  take  evidence  in  the  matter,  I  shall  be  glad  to  arrange 
for  the  presentation  of  such  evidence  in  my  behalf;  until  that 
time  I  can  see  no  good  end  to  be  gained  by  such  a  meeting  as  you 
suggest.* 

*  Oral  statements  of  Professor  Knowlton  indicate  that  his  reason  for 
taking  this  position  was  a  fear  that,  if  he  appeared  before  the  Board  under 
the  conditions  proposed  (i.e.,  without  any  assurance  of  an  opportunity  to 
present  evidence  and  secure  a  thorough  investigation)  he  would  thereby 
prejudice  his  claim  to  such  an  investigation.  A  similar  position  was 
adopted  by  Professor  Wise.  The  Committee  takes  occasion  to  say  that 
Mr.  Knowlton,  in  refusing  to  recognize  the  authority  of  the  Board  to  take 
cognizance  of  his  private  expressions  of  opinion  concerning  the  qualifica- 
tions of  the  Chairman  of  the  Board,  seems  to  the  Committee  to  have  done 
a  service  both  to  his  profession  and  to  the  interests  of  the  University  of 
Utah. 


26     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

The  Committee  can  not  regard  the  privilege  of  a  "hear- 
ing" thus  offered  Professor  Knowlton  as  equivalent  to  an 
assurance  of  a  genuine  and  thorough  investigation  into  the 
charges.  It  is,  indeed,  compelled  by  the  Board's  public 
declarations,  and  by  its  replies  to  certain  questions  pro- 
pounded by  the  Committee,  to  conclude  that  the  Board  was 
on  March  17  committed  to  a  policy  which  deprived  such  an 
investigation  of  pertinency  to  the  principle  by  which  the 
Board's  action  was  determined;  and  that,  in  fact,  the  Board 
formally  refused  an  investigation,  in  the  proper  sense  of 
that  term.  For,  in  its  "  Public  Statement"  of  March  17, 
the  Board  defined  its  position  in  the  following  terms: 

It  is  not  necessary  for  the  Board  to  rest  its  decision  as  to  Dr. 
Knowlton  and  Professor  Wise  upon  the  above  reasons  [i.e.,  the 
charges],  because  the  Board  knows  that  there  is  such  a  serious 
breach  between  the  President  on  the  one  side,  and  Dr.  Knowlton 
and  Professor  Wise  on  the  other,  that  one  or  the  other  must  go. 
We  therefore  base  our  decision  on  that  point.  No  public  hear- 
ing, no  judicial  or  other  investigation,  can  change  or  obviate  the 
fact  that  there  is  a  serious  and  irreparable  breach.* 

Later  in  its  "  Public  Statement"  the  Board,  replying  to  a 
petition  received  from  the  Alumni  Association,  declares  that 
"it  refuses  to  be  forced  into  a  public  or  any  investigation  by 
the  resolution"  adopted  by  the  alumni  at  their  meeting. 
The  Committee  feels  compelled  to  suppose  that  when  the 
Board  thus  officially  expressed  itself  on  March  17,  it  cor- 
rectly defined  its  own  attitude  on  that  date  toward  the 
requests  for  an  investigation  into  the  cases  of  the  accused 
professors.  The  expressions  then  used  are  clearly  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  contention  that  the  Board  was  at  that  time 
prepared  to  carry  out  a  genuine  investigation  into  the  truth 
of  the  President's  charges  and  the  adequacy  of  his  reasons 

*  "Public  Statement,"  page  4.  The  breach,  it  is  well  to  make  clear, 
consisted  solely  in  the  President's  belief  in  the  charges  against  Messrs. 
Knowlton  and  Wise,  and  his  consequent  determination  to  secure  the  re- 
moval of  these  teachers.  There  was,  apart  from  the  charges,  no  personal 
quarrel  between  the  President  and  the  two  professors. 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        27 

for  his  recommendations.     The  Board,  moreover,  on  April 
17,  made  the  subjoined  reply  to  the  following  question: 

Question:  Is  the  Board  at  the  present  time  willing  itself  to 
investigate  the  charges  against  Professors  Knowlton  and  Wise? 

Answer:  No,  not  in  view  of  the  attitude  taken  by  the  Board 
regarding  the  existing  breach  between  President  Kingsbury  and 
Professors  Knowlton  and  Wise. 

This  breach,  however,  by  the  Board's  statements,  existed 
on  March  17,  and  the  Board's  "  attitude  regarding  this 
breach"  was  the  same  at  that  time  as  at  the  tune  the  above 
reply  was  formulated.  It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  the 
Board  had  then  the  same  reason  for  refusing  an  investigation 
that  it  had  subsequently;  and  that  in  fact  it  did  not  then 
make  any  genuinely  judicial  inquiry  into  the  charges,  and 
that  it  still  refuses  to  make  such  an  inquiry.* 

It  appears  clear  to  the  Committee  that  in  any  university 
in  which  the  principles  and  procedure  of  the  President  and 
governing  board,  in  relation  to  dismissals  and  to  the  making 
and  publishing  of  charges  against  professors,  are  of  the  sort 
shown  by  the  foregoing  analysis,  teachers  have  no  substan- 
tial security  against  the  most  serious  injustice. 

4-  Question  of  Truth  of  Principal  Charge.  It  remains  for 
the  Committee  to  inquire  as  to  the  truth  of  the  only  one 
among  the  four  charges  which  it  is  able  to  look  upon  as  seri- 

*  Since  the  above  was  written,  the  Committee  has  received  from  the 
Chairman  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Regents  a  copy  of 
an  article  by  him  in  the  Salt  Lake  Tribune  (May  27,  1915)  which  explicitly 
states  that  an  investigation  was  denied  the  professors  dismissed.  Mr. 
Young  writes:  "Mr.  Kingsbury,  upon  information  deemed  satisfactory  to 
himself,  believed  that  Messrs.  Knowlton  and  Wise  were  disloyal  to  him, 
and  ergo,  he  being  the  duly  constituted  head  of  the  school,  to  the  univer- 
sity itself.  Believing  that,  he  determined  not  to  recommend  their  re-em- 
ployment and  so  informed  them.  They  demanded  reasons,  which  he  out- 
lined, and  an  investigation,  which  he  denied.  The  Regents,  impressed, 
through  long  years  of  acquaintanceship  with  Dr.  Kingsbury's  fundamental 
conservatism  and  square-dealing,  decided  to  sustain  his  action  and  to  deny 
an  investigation,  on  the  doctor's  assurance  that  the  board  must  choose 
between  him  and  the  released  professors." 


28     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

ous,  the  one  which  alone  (as  will  appear  later)  the  Board 
itself  now  appears  to  regard  as  a  legitimate  ground  for  dis- 
missal. This,  as  has  been  mentioned,  is  the  charge  of  hav- 
ing "worked  against  the  administration.7'  Whether  this  is 
a  grave  accusation  or  otherwise  depends  upon  its  meaning; 
the  terms  in  which  it  is  couched  are  extremely  vague.  The 
Committee  has  therefore  asked  the  Board  of  Regents  the 
question:  "What  specific  acts,  or  modes  of  action,  are  by 
the  above  expression  charged  against  Professor  Knowlton?" 
For  answer  the  Board  has  referred  the  Committee  to  the 
replies  of  President  Kingsbury.  The  Committee  is,  how- 
ever, unable  to  find  among  Dr.  Kingsbury's  replies  any 
answer  of  the  specific  sort  desired. 

In  answer  to  the  question,  "What  is  the  nature  of  the 
evidence  upon  which  this  charge  is  based?7'  Dr.  Kings- 
bury  makes  the  following  statement: 

Answer:  No.  Not  in  view  of  the  attitude  taken  by  the  Board 
regarding  the  existing  breach  between  President  Kingsbury  and 
Professors  Knowlton  and  Wise. 

Dr.  Knowlton  was  told  that  the  President  was  convinced  that 
he  (Dr.  Knowlton)  was  working  against  the  administration  and 
that  he  (Dr.  Knowlton)  had  spoken  very  disrespectfully  of  the 
Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Regents.  Soon  after  this  statement 
was  made  to  Dr.  Knowlton,  many  things  occurred  which  added 
to  the  conviction  of  the  President  that  his  friends  who  had  told 
him  that  Dr.  Knowlton  was  working  against  him  had  told  the 
truth.  It  took  more  than  a  year  for  the  President  to  become 
convinced  that  his  friends  had  made  no  mistake  in  regard  to  what 
they  had  told  him.  This  he  fully  realized  when  the  efforts  being 
made  to  remove  him  culminated  in  the  Board  of  Regents.  The 
following  is  a  quotation  from  the  letter  of  a  resigning  member  of 
the  Faculty:  "I  have  been  long  enough  at  the  University  of  Utah 
to  realize  that  your  suspicions  of  disloyalty  are  not  unfounded. 
There  are  things  which  cannot  be  substantiated  by  legal  proofs 
and  still  they  exist.  Whoever  has  had  ears  to  hear  and  eyes  to 
see  knows  that  there  have  been  more  or  less  covert  aspirations 
for  the  President's  chair.  As  my  interest  has  been  all  centered 
on  my  own  professional  work,  I  have  preferred  to  maintain  an 
attitude  of  reserve.  But  now  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that,  in  my 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH         29 

opinion,  the  President's  position  is  too  important  to  be  coveted. 
Your  successor,  Mr.  President,  if  he  is  to  take  up  your  mantle 
worthily,  should  be  a  man  disinterested  in  all  this  subtle  agitation. 

This  reply  appears  to  contain  three  assertions  or  direct 
implications:  that  an  attempt  has  been  made  in  the  Board 
of  Regents  to  remove  President  Kingsbury;  that  this  at- 
tempt resulted  from,  or  was  connected  with,  efforts  to  secure 
his  removal  made  by  one  or  more  members  of  the  Faculty; 
and  that  Dr.  Knowlton  was  active  in  this  effort.  The  fact 
that  Dr.  Knowlton  alone  was  dismissed  on  this  ground 
would  seem  to  imply  the  further  charge  that  he  was  a 
leader  in  the  movement. 

For  the  assertions  relating  to  Dr.  Kingsbury  personally, 
it  is  to  be  observed  that  Dr.  Kingsbury  offers  nothing  in 
the  nature  of  evidence  beyond  his  personal  belief,  and  the 
statement  that  " friends77  (unnamed,  and  unspecified  as  to 
number)  made  these  assertions.  Representatives  of  the 
University  administration  subsequently  informed  the  Com- 
mittee that  if  given  some  additional  time  they  hoped  to  be 
able  to  induce  these  confidential  informants  of  the  President 
to  testify  over  their  own  names.  Though  the  Committee 
had  already  for  some  weeks  been  seeking  to  elicit  this  evi- 
dence, it  was  unwilling  to  reach  a  decision  upon  the  point 
until  every  reasonable  opportunity  had  been  given  for  the 
production  of  all  available  testimony.  The  Committee,  has 
therefore,  deferred  for  six  weeks  the  completion  and  publi- 
cation of  this  report.  Up  to  the  time  of  its  preparation  for 
the  press,  no  evidence  from  the  anonymous  accusers  of  Pro- 
fessor Knowlton  has  been  forthcoming. 

Dr.  Knowlton,  on  the  other  hand,  lays  before  the  Com- 
mittee as  evidence,  first,  his  personal  affidavit,  as  follows : 

STATE  OF  UTAH 
COUNTY  OF  SALT  LAKE 

A.  A.  Knowlton,  being  first  duly  sworn  upon  oath,  deposes  and 
says,  That  since  Sept.,  1909,  he  has  held  the  position  of  Associate 
Professor  of  Physics  at  the  University  of  Utah;  that  during  that 
time  he  has  always  been  a  loyal  supporter  of  President  J.  T. 


30     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

Kingsbury;  that  he  has  never  entered  into  any  plot  or  conspiracy 
against  the  said  J.  T.  Kingsbury  and  that  he  has  never  known  of 
the  existence  of  any  such  plot  or  conspiracy;  that,  on  the  contrary, 
he  has  on  several  occasions  defended  the  said  J.  T.  Kingsbury 
against  the  criticism  of  others  and  has  frequently  expressed  a 
favorable  opinion  of  the  past  services  of  the  said  J.  T.  Kingsbury 
to  the  University  of  Utah;  that  until  the  events  subsequent  to 
Feb.  25,  1915,  affiant  verily  believed  that  the  said  J.  T.  Kingsbury 
was  well  fitted  to  perform  the  duties  of  President  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Utah,  and  that  the  said  J.  T.  Kingsbury  was  a  desirable 
man  for  the  position  which  he  held;  this  opinion  affiant  frequently 
expressed  and  he  believes  it  to  have  been  well  known  to  many 
people. 

Affiant  further  says  that  he  has  no  knowledge  of  any  specific 
charge  of  disloyalty  upon  his  part  toward  the  said  J.  T.  Kings- 
bury;  that  the  said  J.  T.  Kingsbury  has  refused  either  to  make 
any  specific  charges  or  to  confront  affiant  with  those  responsible 
for  the  general  charge  that  affiant  has  been  "working  against 
the  administration."  This  general  charge  affiant  declares  to  be 
wholly  untrue. 

(Signed)  A.  A.  KNOWLTON. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  16th  day  of  April,  1915. 

A.  M.  CHENEY 
Notary  Public. 

Dr.  Knowlton  also  transmits  to  the  Committee  formal 
statements  from  four  other  persons  relating  to  his  attitude 
towards  the  President  of  the  University;  two  of  these  are  ap- 
pended, the  others,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  being  summarized : 

(a)     To  Whom  it  may  Concern: 

In  the  Physical  Science  building  of  the  University  of  Utah,  Pro- 
fessor Knowlton  has  occupied  as  his  office  room  31,  while  I  have 
occupied  as  my  office  room  32.  These  rooms  are  adjacent  with 
a  door  connecting  them.  This  has  resulted  hi  Mr.  Knowlton  and 
myself  being,  by  chance,  very  closely  associated.  We  have  en- 
gaged in  many  conversations  and  on  many  subjects.  I  do  not 
recall  that  in  any  conversation  that  we  have  had,  has  Mr.  Knowlton 
ever  expressed  any  disloyalty  toward  the  Executive  of  the  Univer- 
sity or  the  Regents  of  the  University. 

(Signed)  E.  H.  BECKSTRAND, 
Professor  of  Mechanical  Engineering. 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        31 

(b)  Be  it  known  that  I,  W.  R.  Argyle,  am  a  senior  of  the 
University  of  Utah,  a  member  of  the  A.  F.  Fraternity,  have  been 
a  stock-room  assistant  for  two  years  in  the  Department  of  Physics, 
and  am  majoring  in  Physics.     On  several  occasions  I  have  talked 
confidentially  with  Dr.  Knowlton  on  student  affairs.    Dr.  Knowl- 
ton  has  as  frequently  been  a  guest  at  the  fraternity  house,  and  on 
no  occasions  has  Dr.  Knowlton  spoken  in  such  a  way  as  to  tend  to 
lessen  the  respect  of  the  students  for  the  President.     On  the  con- 
trary he  has  stood  by  him  and  has  encouraged  us  to  do  the  same. 
This  was  most  forcefully  brought  to  my  attention  when  the  fol- 
lowing incident  happened:  Last  fall  the  A.  F.  Fraternity  were 
entertaining  two  Phi  Delta  boys  from  California  in  the  hope  of 
gaining  their  help  in  obtaining  a  charter  in  their  national  frater- 
nity.    During  their  visit  they  had  an  interview  with  President 
Kingsbury,  at  which  time  the  latter  displayed  considerable  ignor- 
ance concerning  the  fraternity  situation  at  Utah.     I  related  to 
Dr.  Knowlton  the  conversation,  and  I  rather  resented  the  fact 
that  our  President  showed  such  ignorance  concerning  fraternities 
here.     Dr.  Knowlton  took  issue  with  me  and  expressed  himself 
by  saying  that  the  President  was  entirely  excusable  for  such  mis- 
takes, and  that  his  worth  to  our  school  along  other  lines  was  of 
such  importance  that  this  incident  meant  but  little.     He  expressed 
the  wish  at  that  time  that  the  fellows  might  get  behind  the  Pres- 
ident and  support  him  better  than  they  were. 

W.  R.  ARGYLE. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  before  me  this  13th  day  of  April,  1915. 

R.  H.  FORSYTH, 
Notary  Public. 

(c)  James  H.  Wolfe,  a  member  of  the  Athenian  Club  of  Salt 
Lake  City,  of  which  Dr.  Knowlton  is  also  a  member,  states  upon 
oath  that  Dr.  Knowlton  by  request  of  the  Committee  on  Pro- 
gramme addressed  the  Club  on  January  8,  1915,  on  the  subject 
of  "The  University  of  Utah;"  that  this  address  "was  highly  com- 
mendable to  the  work  and  progress  of  the  institution,  and  to  the 
policy  and  ability  of  Dr.  J.  T.  Kingsbury;"  and  that  other  members 
of  the  Club  then  present  remarked  upon  the  loyalty  and  fairness 
of  Dr.  Knowlton. 

(d)  John  Jensen  deposes  that  he  was  present  at  a  banquet 
given  in  honor  of  the  athletes  of  the  University  of  Utah  during 
the  past  winter,  and  sat  at  a  table  with  Dr.  Knowlton  and  a 


32     AMEKICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

number  of  alumni.  Mr.  Jensen  further  deposes  that  during  the 
evening  the  question  of  the  fitness  of  Dr.  Kingsbury  for  the 
presidency  of  the  University  of  Utah  came  up  for  discussion. 
Several  of  those  at  the  table  "  expressed  the  conviction  that  Dr. 
Kingsbury  was  no  longer  the  right  person  for  the  place,  and  voiced 
the  belief  that  his  retirement  and  the  securing  of  the  services  of 
some  educator  of  recognized  standing  would  result  in  the  greater 
development  of  the  University  of  Utah.  During  the  whole  of 
this  discussion  not  one  word  of  criticism  of  President  Kingsbury 
came  from  Dr.  Knowlton.  He  was  the  only  man  at  the  table 
who  dissented  from  the  opinion  expressed." 

Professor  Knowlton's  affidavit  and  an  indication  of  the 
nature  of  the  supporting  testimony  have  been  commmuni- 
cated  to  President  Kingsbury  and  the  Regents,  and  they 
have  been  invited  to  submit  evidence  in  rebuttal  if  they 
desired  to  do  so.  No  such  evidence  has  been  received  up  to 
the  time  of  the  preparation  of  this  report. 

The  Committee,  however,  desiring  to  do  all  in  its  power 
to  secure  such  evidence,  if  it  existed,  on  May  17,  addressed 
a  letter  to  all  the  non-resigning  professors  of  the  University 
of  Utah  Faculty,  asking,  among  other  questions,  the  fol- 
lowing: 

Have  you  any  first-hand  knowledge  as  to  the  connection  of 
Professor  Knowlton  with  any  movement  within  the  Faculty  to 
displace  President  Kingsbury? 

Fifteen  out  of  the  twenty-one  professors  to  whom  this 
letter  was  sent  replied;  all  answered  this  question  definitely 
in  the  negative.  Three  replied  more  fully  as  follows: 

(a)  I  have  no  first-hand  knowledge,  or  any  other  kind  of 
knowledge  or  belief,  that  Dr.  Knowlton  was  connected  with  a 
movement  to  replace  President  Kingsbury.    Dr.  Knowlton  has 
been  one  of  our  most  esteemed  Faculty  members.     .     .     His 
demeanor  in  the  performance  of  his  official  and  social  duties  has 
been  exceptionally  exemplary,  with  my  knowledge. 

(b)  No !    On  the  contrary,  Dr.  Knowlton  has  in  my  presence 
defended  Dr.  Kingsbury. 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        33 

(c)  No.  On  the  other  hand,  I  have  every  reason  for  believing 
that  Professor  Knowlton  has  been  a  warm  supporter  of  the  Admin- 
istration and  of  President  Kingsbury. 

Two  professors  speak  of  having  heard  at  second-hand 
that  Professor  Knowlton  was  involved  in  a  movement 
against  the  President.  One  of  these,  Professor  J.  H.  Paul, 
states : 

Some  six  months  before  February,  1915,  I  was  informed  by  a 
man  in  whom  I  have  great  confidence,  that  there  was  a  movement 
afoot  to  displace  President  Kingsbury.  He  named  Professors 
Knowlton  and  Ebaugh,  and  said  there  were  others.  I  did  not 
mention  this  to  any  one  until  after  the  trouble  arose  at  the  Uni- 
versity. When  professors  began  to  resign,  I  tried  to  get  from  my 
informant  the  details  of  this  movement,  but  he  has  not  to  this 
time  (May  22)  answered  my  inquiries. 

The  informant*  here  referred  to  is  not  a  member  of  the 
University  faculty.  Professor  W.  C.  Ebaugh  has  been  noti- 
fied by  the  Committee  of  the  inclusion  of  his  name  in  the 
statement  of  Professor  Paul's  informant.  He  replies  by 
telegraph:  "Your  letter  of  May  29  contains  matter  veri- 
tably new  to  me.  The  statement  connecting  me  with  any 
person  or  persons  as  mentioned,  or  with  any  movement 
like  that  under  discussion,  is  unqualifiedly  false."  The 
Committee  has  received  through  Dean  Cummings  a  tele- 
graphic communication,  signed  by  himself  and  all  the  re- 
signing professors  whom  he  was  at  time  of  sending  able  to 
reach — Messrs.  Holman,  Mattill,  Peterson  and  Vorhies — 
denying  knowledge  of  any  effort,  before  March,  1915, 
among  any  faculty  members,  for  the  removal  of  the  Presi- 
dent. Professor  Wise  has  testified  in  the  same  sense.  Thus, 
out  of  thirty-three  professors  and  associate  professors,  re- 
plies have  been  received  from  twenty-one  in  addition  to  Dr. 
Knowlton  himself,  all  but  seven  being  members  of  the  fac- 
ulty who  have  not  resigned;  none  have  first-hand  knowl- 

*  The  Committee  knows  the  name  of  the  person  in  question,  but  has 
thus  far  been  given  it  only  upon  condition  that  it  be  not  made  public.  The 
Committee  has  attempted  to  induce  this  person  to  testify,  without  success. 


34     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

edge  of  any  " working  against  the  administration'7  on  the 
part  of  Professor  Knowlton.  The  Committee  is,  in  short, 
unable  to  find,  or  to  hear  of,  a  single  member  of  the  Uni- 
versity Faculty  who  is  personally  cognizant  of  any  act  or 
expression  of  Dr.  Knowlton's  which  gives  color  to  the  charge 
made  against  him  by  the  President;  while  it  has  testimony 
from  a  number  of  witnesses  to  the  effect  that  Dr.  Knowlton 
was  a  constant  and  loyal  supporter  of  the  President. 

It  has,  however,  been  intimated  by  certain  persons  that 
Professor  Knowlton  had  encouraged  a  student  organization 
known  as  the  A.  F.  Fraternity  in  acts  of  hostility  against 
President  Kingsbury.  The  Committee  has  brought  this 
intimation  to  the  knowledge  of  officers  of  the  fraternity,  and 
has  received  from  its  President  the  following  affidavit: 

STATE  OF  UTAH, 

COUNTY  OF  SALT  LAKE 

La  Mar  Nelson,  being  first  duly  sworn  according  to  law,  deposes 
and  says : 

That  he  is  a  student  of  the  University  of  Utah  and  President 
of  the  A.  F.  Fraternity;  that  he  is  acquainted  with  the  individual 
members  of  the  said  Fraternity  and  their  attitude  in  the  recent 
University  controversy;  that  the  A.  F.  Fraternity  has  at  no  time 
made  an  effort  to  secure  the  removal  of  President  Kingsbury;  that 
deponent  has  inquired  among  the  individual  members  of  the 
Fraternity  and  that  they  have  declared  to  him,  and  deponent 
himself  declares  of  his  own  knowledge,  that  Dr.  Knowlton  of  the 
University  of  Utah  has  at  no  time  and  upon  no  occasion  encour- 
aged the  members  of  the  A.  F.  Fraternity  to  work  against  Presi- 
dent Kingsbury;  that  Dr.  Knowlton  is  in  no  way  connected  with 
the  A.  F.  Fraternity,  but  on  the  contrary  is  a  member  of  a  rival 
fraternity  in  the  University  of  Utah;  that  the  members  of  the  A. 
F.  Fraternity  disclaim  all  knowledge  of  and  connection  with  any 
effort  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Knowlton  to  work  against  President 
Kingsbury;  that  until  Dr.  Knowlton's  dismissal  many  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  A.  F.  Fraternity  were  not  even  acquainted  with  Dr. 
Knowlton;  that  the  individual  members  of  the  A.  F.  Fraternity 
are  divided  in  their  opinions  with  regard  to  the  merits  of  the 
University  difficulty;  that  some  members  of  the  Fraternity  have 
supported  the  Administration,  while  some  members  have  felt  that 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        35 

the  policy  of  the  Administration  was  wrong;  that  it  is  unfair,  un- 
just and  untrue  to  say  that  the  A.  F.  Fraternity  has  worked 
against  President  Kingsbury. 

LA  MAR  NELSON. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  5th  day  of  June,  A.  D.,  1915. 
FRANK  E.  HOLMAN. 
Notary  Public. 

My  commission  expires  March  12,  1916. 

Finally,  the  Committee  has  received  statements  in  regard 
to  this  charge  from  members  of  the  Board  of  Regents.  The 
minority  of  the  Board  (Messrs.  W.  W.  Armstrong,  Ernest 
Bamberger  and  G.  C.  Whitmore)  declare,  in  their  reply  of 
April  16: 

On  the  facts  so  far  elicited,  the  charge  against  Professor  Knowl- 
ton,  i.e.,  that  he  had  "worked  against  the  administration/'  has 
not  been  proven,  and  should  not  be  maintained  by  the  Board  of 
Regents. 

The  Committee  understands  that  one  or  more  other 
members  of  the  Board  share  this  view  but  are  unwilling  to 
be  quoted. 

This  statement  of  the  Regents  not  only  shows  that  Presi- 
dent Kingsbury  has,  even  up  to  May  27,  never  laid  before  the 
Regents  anything  resembling  evidence  of  his  charge  against 
Professor  Knowlton;  it  also  constitutes  first-hand  testimony 
to  the  fact  that  Professor  Knowlton  was  not  in  any  degree 
responsible  for  a  motion  made  in  the  Board  of  Regents  for 
the  retirement  of  the  President,  and  supported,  as  the  Com- 
mittee understands,  by  some  of  the  Regents  mentioned. 

The  Committee,  therefore,  in  view  of  all  the  foregoing 
testimony,  finds  that  this  charge  against  Professor  Knowl- 
ton is  wholly  unsupported  by  evidence,  beyond  the  asser- 
tions, reported  at  second-hand,  of  one  or  more  persons  who 
now  refuse  to  testify  or  to  permit  their  names  to  be  divulged; 
that  the  charge  is  in  conflict  with  the  sworn  statement  of 
Professor  Knowlton  himself,  and  with  similar  statements 
from  a  number  of  other  witnesses;  and  that  it  is  irreconcil- 
able with  the  fact  that  no  member  of  the  Faculty  has  been 


36     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

found  who  knows,  of  his  own  knowledge,  of  any  activity 
against  the  President  of  the  University  on  the  part  of  the 
professor  accused. 

The  Committee  has  thought  it  advisable,  also,  to  inquire 
fully  into  the  question  whether  there  was  a  movement  on 
the  part  of  any  other  members  of  the  faculty  to  secure  the 
retirement  of  President  Kingsbury.  The  President's  state- 
ment cited  above  intimates  that  "  efforts"  to  this  end  had 
been  made  by  professors.  Upon  receipt  of  this  statement, 
the  secretary  of  the  association  telegraphed  Dean  Cum- 
mings,  asking  from  him,  from  Dean  Holman,  and  from  any 
full  professors  accessible,  immediate  answers  to  the  follow- 
ing questions: 

First,  did  you  ever  speak  to  any  other  professors  before  March 
in  favor  of  effort  to  secure  the  President's  removal?  Second,  did 
you  ever  suggest  to  any  Regent  the  desirability  of  his  removal? 
Third,  do  you  know  of  efforts  before  March  among  any  Faculty 
members,  for  the  President's  removal? 

The  reply,  sent  by  Messrs.  Cummings,  Holman,  Mattill, 
Merrill,*  Peterson  and  Vorhies,  answered  all  three  ques- 
tions emphatically  in  the  negative,  and  added:  "The  first 
suggestion  of  removal  of  the  President  came  from  members 
of  the  Board  of  Regents."  Dr.  Knowlton  also  declares  in 
his  affidavit,  and  Messrs.  Ebaugh  and  Wise  in  their  state- 
ments that  they  have  known  of  no  faculty  movement 
against  the  President.  After  postponement  of  the  publi- 
cation of  this  report  was  decided  upon,  the  Committee  sent 
to  all  of  the  non-resigning  professors  an  inquiry  upon  the 
point,  in  the  form  of  the  following  question:  "Have  you 
first-hand  knowledge  of  any  movement  that  existed  within 
the  faculty  to  displace  President  Kingsbury?"  Of  the 
fifteen  replies  received,  all  were  in  the  negative.  One 
writer  states  that  after  the  announcement  of  the  President's 
intention  to  recommend  the  dismissal  of  four  members  of 

*  Prof.  J.  T.  Merrill,  one  of  the  members  of  the  Utah  faculty  who 
have  not  resigned.  Dr.  Merrill  is  dean  of  the  School  of  Mines  and  professor 
of  physics  and  electrical  engineering. 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        37 

the  faculty,  one  of  his  colleagues  (who  has  since  resigned) 
said  to  him:  "If  enough  of  us  get  together  and  stick,  we  can 
force  the  President  to  retain  Knowlton,  or  we  can  force  him 
out,  or  we  can  ourselves  get  out  with  dignity  and  self-re- 
spect." As  this  incident  occurred  not  before,  but  in  con- 
sequence of,  the  President's  recommendations,  it  is  not 
germane  to  the  question  which  the  Committee  is  here  con- 
sidering. One  writer,  Professor  Bennion,  mentions  a  piece 
of  hearsay  evidence  as  to  the  existence  of  opposition  to  the 
President  among  the  Faculty: 

Early  in  February  I  was  informed  by  a  member  of  the  Board  of 
Regents,  that  an  effort  was  being  made  to  remove  the  President, 
and  that  a  fellow-member  of  the  Board  had  said  that  a  majority 
of  the  Faculty  was  against  the  President. 

The  Committee  cannot  attach  importance  to  third-hand 
testimony  of  this  kind;  and  the  reported  statement  in  any 
case  was  an  expression  of  a  belief  as  to  the  prevailing  Fac- 
ulty opinion,  and  did  not  assert  the  existence  of  any  conspir- 
acy or  concerted  movement  against  the  President.  The 
Committee  concludes  that  there  is  no  evidence  deserving  of 
consideration  to  show  that  any  such  movement  existed;  and 
that  there  is  positive  evidence  that  it  did  not  exist.  For  it 
is  scarcely  conceivable  that  such  a  movement  should  have 
been  going  on  without  coming  to  the  personal  knowledge  of 
any  of  the  twenty-three  professors,  including  four  deans, 
from  whom  the  Committee  has  received  replies. 

It  would  obviously  have  been  much  easier  for  President 
Kingsbury  to  ascertain  all  of  these  facts  than  it  has  been  for 
the  present  Committee  to  do  so;  and  it  was  manifestly  his 
first  duty  to  ascertain  them,  before  giving  credence  to  the 
statements  of  his  secret  informants.  The  conduct  of  the 
President  in  this  matter  appears  so  singular  that  it  seems  to 
the  Committee  necessary  to  mention,  for  the  information 
of  those  unacquainted  with  general  conditions  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Utah,  certain  related  circumstances  which  at 
the  University  appears  to  be  matters  of  common  knowledge. 
President  Kingsbury — as  is  shown  by  passages  already  cited 


38     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

and  by  other  evidence  in  the  Committee's  possession — had 
of  late  been  unpopular  with  a  large  number  of  the  students 
and  alumni.  Criticism  of  him  in  these  circles,  during  the 
past  year  especially,  is  said  to  have  been  vigorous,  wide- 
spread and  unconcealed.  Members  of  the  Faculty  in  their 
intercourse  with  alumni,  undergraduates,  and  townspeople, 
frequently  encountered  this  sentiment  unfavorable  to  the 
President.  As  the  evidence  heretofore  given  shows,  Pro- 
fessor Knowlton  as  well  as  other  members  of  the  Faculty, 
in  such  situations,  frequently  defended  the  President  against 
his  critics.  The  feeling  of  the  students  and  graduates,  how- 
ever, found  an  echo  in  the  Board  of  Regents;  and  as  the 
Committee  is  informed,  within  the  past  year  a  motion  look- 
ing to  the  President's  retirement  was  made  at  a  meeting  of 
the  Board.  The  motion  was  supported  only  by  a  small 
minority,  but  it  is  clear  that  at  this  time  the  President  be- 
came apprehensive  for  the  security  of  his  own  position.  It 
was  this  situation  which  seemed  to  him  to  give  significance 
to  the  assurance  of  his  unnamed  informants,  that  certain 
members  of  the  Faculty  were  " working  against  him,"  and 
that  Professor  Knowlton  was  a  leader  in  this  movement. 
The  Committee  finds  that  Dr.  Kingsbury  was  led  by  these 
circumstances  into  an  unreasoning  attitude  of  suspicion 
towards  Professor  Knowlton  and  towards  others  of  the  Fac- 
ulty; and  in  consequence  of  this  attitude,  his  subsequent 
conduct,  especially  with  respect  to  Professor  Knowlton, 
was  to  a  singular  degree  uncontrolled  by  considerations  of 
fairness,  by  a  sense  of  the  obligations  imposed  by  the  quasi- 
judicial  character  of  his  office,  or  by  the  practical  judgment 
properly  to  be  expected  in  the  head  of  an  important  educa- 
tional institution. 

5.  Present  Attitude  of  Board  of  Regents  with  Regard  to  Dis- 
missals. Since  its  meeting  of  March  17,  the  Board  of  Re- 
gents appears  to  have  changed  its  opinion  as  to  the  legit- 
imacy of  dismissing  members  of  the  Faculty  upon  the  first 
three  of  the  four  grounds  given  by  the  President  as  reasons 
for  his  recommendations.  The  Board  has  been  asked  by 
the  Committee,  with  respect  to  each  of  these  three  whether 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        39 

it  regards  that  reason  "as  among  the  proper  grounds  for 
terminating  a  professor's  connection  with  the  University." 
The  reply,  under  date  of  April  16,  was  in  each  case  negative.* 
The  Board  has  as  noted,  also  received  through  this  Com- 
mittee a  copy  of  the  affidavit  of  Professor  Knowlton,  to- 
gether with  an  indication  of  the  nature  of  the  supporting 
evidence.  In  sending  this  affidavit,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Association  wrote  as  follows : 

I  conceive  it  to  be  my  duty  also  to  transmit  to  the  Board  the 
enclosed  sworn  statement  from  Professor  Knowlton,  in  which  he 
makes  a  categorical  and  sweeping  denial  of  the  only  serious  charge 
against  him.  If  the  Board  still  maintains  this  charge  against  Dr. 
Knowlton,  it  thereby  also  maintains  against  him  an  accusation  of 
false  swearing.  It  would,  I  think,  greatly  interest  the  Committee 
of  the  Association  of  University  Professors  to  know  whether,  in 
these  circumstances,  the  Board  is  disposed  to  maintain  the  charge. 
I  am  not  myself  able  to  see  that  the  Board  can  justly  avoid  the 
alternative  of  either  a  public  withdrawal  of  the  charge,  or  a  state- 
ment of  the  specific  acts  referred  to  by  that  charge,  with  a  public 
presentation  of  sworn  evidence  in  support  of  it.  I  cannot  but  feel 
confident  that  the  Board  will  agree  that  no  third  course  of  action 
would  be  consistent  with  the  principles  upon  which  honorable 
men  are  accustomed  to  regulate  their  conduct  in  such  matters. 

The  Committee  regrets  to  report  that  the  Board  has 
adopted,  with  respect  to  charge  against  Dr.  Knowlton, 
neither  of  the  alternatives  suggested  by  the  Secretary;  and 
that  it  has,  in  spite  of  the  change  of  view  mentioned,  refused 
to  reopen  the  cases  of  the  professors  dismissed.  The  Com- 
mittee takes  pleasure  in  recording,  however,  that  Regents 
Armstrong,  Bamberger,  and  Whitmore,  have  as  individuals 
frankly  and  unequivocally  expressed  their  disbelief  in  the  ac- 
cusation of  disloyalty  brought  against  Professor  Knowlton. 

*  To  the  question:  "Is  it  among  the  conditions  of  the  tenure  of  office  in 
the  University  of  Utah,  that  expressions  uncomplimentary  to  the  adminis- 
tration be  not  employed  even  in  private?"  the  majority  reply  was  a  qual- 
ified negative:  "No,  unless  such  conduct  be  offensively  persisted  in." 
The  minority  of  the  Board  answers  all  three  of  these  questions  "emphat- 
ically in  the  negative." 


40     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

6.  Summary  of  Findings.  The  findings  of  the  Committee, 
so  far  as  they  relate  to  the  recent  dismissals,  may  be  briefly 
recapitulated  as  follows : 

(a)  Of  the  four  charges  which  were  given  by  the  President 
of  the  University  as  his  reasons  for  recommending  the  dis- 
missal of  professors,  three  specify  no  proper  grounds  for  such 
action,  and  the  fourth  is  without  basis  in  fact. 

(b)  The  President  of  the  University  and  the  Chairman  of 
the  Board  of  Regents  by  their  recent  action  virtually  gave 
notice  that  the  expression  by  a  professor,  in  private  conver- 
sation, of  an  unfavorable  opinion  of  their  qualifications  for 
office  would  be  a  ground  for  dismissal.    This  action,  unjus- 
tified in  general,  the  Committee  regards  as  peculiarly  un- 
suitable in  officials  of  a  state  university. 

(c)  The  governing  body  of  the  University  has  publicly 
declared  that  in  cases  of  serious  friction  between  officers  and 
teachers  of  the  University,  it  is  not  concerned  to  know 
"who  is  right  and  who  is  wrong  in  the  disagreement,"  but 
only  to  secure  harmony  by  eliminating  from  the  University 
those  whose  services  it  believes  to  be  relatively  less  valuable. 
This,  in  the  light  thrown  upon  its  practical  meaning  by  re- 
cent action  of  the  Board,  appears  to  the  Committee  equiva- 
lent to  a  formal  announcement  that  considerations  of  equity 
have  not  been,  and  will  not  be,  taken  account  of  by  the 
Board,  in  cases  involving  the  relations  of  the  President  of 
the  University  and  the  Faculty. 

(d)  The  Board  has,  however,  given  two  irreconcilable 
versions  of  its  attitude  on  March  17  towards  the  request  for 
a  judicial  investigation  of  the  charges.    The  first  version  is 
that,  in  view  of  the  Board's  adoption  of  the  last-mentioned 
principle,  no  investigation  could  alter  the  essential  consid- 
eration upon  which  the  Board  based  its  action;  and  that,  in 
fact,  the  Board  "  refused  to  be  forced  into  a  public  or  any 
investigation."    The  other  version  is  that  an  opportunity 
for  an  investigation  was  actually  afforded  the  professors 
accused,   and  was  rejected.    The  Committee  finds  that 
though  the  professors  accused  were  invited  to  appear  at  a 
meeting  of  the  Board,  no  properly  judicial  investigation 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        41 

into  the  truth  of  the  charges  has  ever  been  made  either  by 
the  President  or  by  the  Board  of  Regents. 

(e)  The  Board  now  appears  to  regard  either  two  or  three 
of  the  charges  as  "not  constituting  proper  grounds  for  ter- 
minating a  professor's  connection  with  the  University.7'    It 
has  also  received  through  this  Committee  the  sworn  state- 
ment of  the  professor  against  whom  the  fourth  charge  was 
made,  categorically  denying  the  truth  of  the  charge.    The 
Board  nevertheless  refuses  to  withdraw  this  charge,  to  pre- 
sent evidence  in  support  of  it,  or  to  reopen  the  cases  of  the 
professors  against  whom  these  four  charges  were  brought. 

(f)  The  evidence  shows  that,  under  the  present  adminis- 
tration, unverified  gossip,  coming  from  persons  unwilling  to 
assume  public  responsibility  for  their  statements,  has  played 
an  unfortunate  part  in  the  affairs  of  the  University  of  Utah; 
and  that  Professor  Knowlton  was  dismissed  without  ever 
being  permitted  to  know  who  were  his  accusers,  in  the  case 
of  the  principal  charge  against  him. 

(g)  In  its  "  Public  Statement"  issued  on  March  17  in  ex- 
planation of  the  dismissals,  the  Board  denied  the  limits  of 
freedom  of  speech  in  the  University  in  such  a  way  as  to  jus- 
tify any  member  of  the  Faculty  in  resigning  forthwith. 


II.  RELATION  OF  FACULTY  AND  REGENTS 

One  of  the  reasons  assigned  for  their  action  by  several  of 
the  resigning  professors,  is  the  fact  that  no  consideration 
was  given  by  the  Board  of  Regents  at  their  meeting  on 
March  17,  to  the  following  communications  from  the 
Faculty: 

To  the  Honorable,  the  Board  of  Regents, 
The  University  of  Utah, 
Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

DEAR  SIRS  AND  MADAM: 

At  a  meeting  in  the  Faculty  room  today  (March  9),  beginning 
at  4.10  p.  m.,  to  which  all  members  of  the  Faculty  had  been  in- 
vited and  to  which  the  President  made  a  statement,  the  under- 
signed members  passed  the  following  .resolution: 

Resolved,  That,  in  view  of  the  public  agitation,  it  be  the  sense 
of  this  Faculty  that  a  statement  from  the  Board  of  Regents, 
assuring  the  public  that  a  hearing  will  be  given  each  man  affected 
adversely  by  the  recent  recommendations  of  the  President,  and 
that  results  of  said  hearing  will  be  published,  will  greatly  benefit 
the  University. 

This  petition  was  first  adopted  by  a  large  majority  of 
those  attending,  and  to  it  the  individual  signatures  of  twenty 
ty-two  members  of  the  Faculty  were  attached.  The  peti- 
tion was  transmitted  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Board  of 
Regents  accompanied  by  the  following  statement  of  Profes- 
sor Joseph  Peterson,  chairman  of  the  Committee,  having  the 
petition  in  charge: 

I  am  authorized  to  state  for  most  of  those  who  signed  this  reso- 
lution— by  an  oversight  the  matter  was  not  brought  before  all — 
that  the  Faculty  invites  an  investigation  of  its  own  members  as  to 
their  loyalty  and  attitudes  towards  matters  involving  the  welfare 
of  the  University. 

42 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        43 

The  fact  that  this  request  of  the  Faculty  not  only  was  not 
granted,  but  was  not  in  any  way  considered  or  acted  upon, 
was,  then,  regarded  by  a  number  of  the  signers  as  showing 
that,  in  the  words  of  Professor  W.  C.  Ebaugh,  the  Regents 
were  " absolutely  inaccessible  to  the  Faculty/'  This  condi- 
tion appeared  to  those  professors  to  give  absolute  power  of 
control  over  the  Faculty,  and  over  all  educational  policies, 
to  one  man,  the  President,  who  was  under  no  obligation  even 
to  seek  the  advice  of  the  Faculty  before  making  to  the  Board 
the  recommendations  which  that  body,  as  a  rule,  adopted 
without  inquiry.  The  Committee  is  further  informed  that 
on  a  previous  occasion,  in  1913,  the  Faculty  had  sent  to  the 
Regents  a  petition,  asking,  in  view  of  certain  incidents 
which  had  recently  occurred,  that  the  Regents  consider  the 
question  of  the  tenure  of  office  of  professors,  and  the  condi- 
tion of  the  University.  The  communication  was  as  follows : 

University  of  Utah, 
Salt  Lake  City,  October  28,  1913. 
To  the  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  of  Utah: 

I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith,  in  behalf  of  the  members 
of  the  Faculty  whose  signatures  appear  thereon,  a  communication 
to  your  honorable  body,  which  was  adopted  after  a  series  of  meet- 
ings devoted  to  a  consideration  of  the  matters  set  forth  in  this 
paper.  Extended  and  unrestrained  discussion  preceded  the 
wording  of  the  document,  and  the  proceedings  were  characterized 
by  temperate  and  detailed  exposition  of  the  duties  and  obligations 
of  the  teaching  force  to  the  institution.  It  may  be  unnecessary 
to  add  that  there  was  no  hostile  or  individual  criticism  during  any 
of  the  meetings  of  members  of  the  Board  of  Regents.  An  earnest 
desire  for  the  welfare  of  the  University  was  apparently  the  sole 
aim  of  those  who  participated.  Yours  with  respect. 

(Signed)     J.  H.  PAUL, 
Secretary  of  the  Meetings. 

October  13,  1913. 
The  Board  of  Regents,  University  of  Utah,  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

GENTLEMEN:  Believing  that  the  remarkable  growth  and  pros- 
perity of  the  University  of  Utah  during  the  past  decade  has  been 
due  largely  to  the  good  understanding  and  friendly  cooperation 


44     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

that  have  existed  between  the  Board  of  Regents  and  the  Faculty, 
and  fearing  lest  with  the  growth  in  numbers  of  the  Faculty  and  the 
increasing  demands  of  routine  business  upon  the  time  of  the  Re- 
gents, these  relations  may  become  less  satisfactory,  we,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Faculty,  respectfully  desire  to  call  the  attenton  of  the 
members  of  the  Board  of  Regents  to  the  following  statement : 

We  believe  it  to  be  the  function  of  the  Board  of  Regents,  acting 
through  the  President  of  the  University,  to  select  as  instructors 
and  heads  of  departments  the  very  best  men  available,  and  we 
believe  that  the  men  so  selected  should  be  held  responsible  in  the 
highest  degree  for  the  successful  organization  and  conduct  of  the 
work  intrusted  to  them.  We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  history 
of  university  education  in  this  country  shows  conclusively  that 
those  institutions  have  been  most  useful  where  such  responsibility 
has  been  united  with  the  most  perfect  freedom  on  the  part  of  the 
instructor  and  the  greatest  permanency  in  the  tenure  of  his  posi- 
tion; and  that,  on  the  contrary,  those  institutions  in  which  the 
freedom  of  the  instructor  has  been  abridged  or  the  tenure  of  office 
has  been  uncertain  have  been  unable  to  attract  to  themselves 
men  of  the  force  and  ability  needed  for  the  proper  advancement  of 
the  schools  concerned.  We  have  bee*n  perturbed,  therefore,  be- 
cause of  certain  recent  acts  which  appear  to  have  infringed  upon 
the  proper  freedom  of  the  individual  instructors  and  to  have 
raised  a  question  as  to  the  security  of  the  tenure  of  office,  to  wit : 

(1)  The  order  concerning  physical  examinations  was  undoubt- 
edly well  meant,  and  certainly  no  member  of  the  University  Faculty 
wishes  to  appear  to  be  in  opposition  to  any  measure  which  will 
limit  effectively  the  spread  of  tuberculosis.     However,  the  time 
at  which  this  action  was  taken,  the  refusal  to  accept  certificates 
from  any  but  the  designated  physicians,  the  requirement  that  the 
fee  for  such  prescribed  examinations  be  paid  by  the  individual, 
and  the  feeling  that  other,  and  perhaps  more  serious,  sources  of 
possible  infection  were  being  neglected,  have  combined  to  cause 
a  very  considerable  feeling  of  dissatisfaction  upon  the  part  of  a 
large  number  of  the  members  of  the  Faculty. 

(2)  The  purpose  of  the  regulation  concerning  the  acceptance  of 
a  nomination  for  political  office  is  not  well  understood.     If  it  is 
intended  merely  as  a  safeguard  against  neglect  of  duties  arising 
from  such  candidacy,  it  seems  unnecessary.     If  it  has  any  other 
purpose,  it  appears  to  many  of  the  Faculty  to  constitute  an  in- 
fringement of  the  proper  freedom  of  action  of  the  individual. 


EEPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        45 

(3)  Members  of  the  Faculty  have  been  subjected  to  censure  be- 
cause they  had  expressed  views  upon  debatable  questions  which 
did  not  conform  to  those  of  some  other  persons. 

(4)  We  understand  that  a  prominent  member  of  the  Faculty, 
whose  work  had  attracted  much  favorable  comment,  has  been  re- 
moved from  his  position  without  being  fully  informed  as  to  the 
reasons  for  such  action,  and  without  being  accorded  a  hearing  in 
his  own  behalf  by  the  Regents. 

We  are  far  from  believing  that  the  above  mentioned  acts  are 
indications  of  an  intent  upon  the  part  of  the  Regents  to  deal  un- 
justly with  the  Faculty  either  as  a  body  or  as  individuals  but  we 
do  believe  that  they  are  indications  of  a  growing  lack  of  mutual 
understanding  which  should  be  the  subject  of  serious  considera- 
tion upon  the  part  of  both  bodies. 

We  urge,  therefore,  that  there  may  be  occasional  meetings  of 
the  Regents  and  the  Faculty  for  the  serious  open  discussion  of 
problems  pertaining  to  the  life  and  development  of  the  University, 
and  request  that  your  honorable  body  may  take  under  consid- 
eration the  questions  of  (a)  the  tenure  of  office  of  University 
teachers,  and  (b)  the  nature  of  the  relationship  that  should  exist 
between  a  teacher  and  the  University.  Respectfully  submitted. 

(Signed)     Jos.  F.  MERRILL, 
Chairman  of  Meeting. 

The  signatures  of  forty-seven  professors  and  instructors  were 
attached. 

This  petition  manifestly  was  a  courteous  and  friendly 
suggestion  of  practicable  means  for  a  freer  consultation  and 
a  better  understanding  between  Faculty  and  Regents.  The 
only  response  to  it  which  reached  the  petitioners  was  a  note 
from  the  Secretary  of  the  Board  stating  that  the  communi- 
cation had  been  received  and  laid  upon  the  table.  The 
action  of  the  Board  on  March  17, 1915,  thus  seemed  to  many 
of  the  Faculty  to  be  a  reiteration,  upon  a  still  graver  occa- 
sion, of  the  Board's  former  discourteous  refusal,  to  give  any 
attention  to  the  earnest  and  respectful  representations  of 
the  educational  staff  of  the  University. 

To  this  complaint  of  the  resigning  professors  the  Board  of 
Regents  made  three  answers : 


46     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

(a)  The  Board  states  that  the  Faculty  petition  was  not 
in  fact  received  by  it  at  its  meeting  of  March  17.  The  peti- 
tion was  in  the  portfolio  of  the  Secretary,  who  declares  that 
"he  used  his  best  efforts  to  bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the 
Board,  but  without  success."  The  Board  adds: 

In  simple  justice  to  the  Board  of  Regents  and  to  the  Secretary 
it  should  be  said  that  the  hour  was  very  late  and  that  the  Secre- 
tary did  use  his  best  endeavors  to  have  the  Board  consider  a  num- 
ber of  communications  addressed  to  the  Board.  On  account  of 
the  lateness  of  the  hour  it  was  ordered  that  all  further  business  be 
carried  over  until  the  next  meeting.  It  was  not  until  several  days 
after  March  17,  that  the  Regents  knew  that  such  petition  was  in 
the  portfolio  of  the  Secretary  at  the  meeting  in  question. 

The  force  of  this  explanation  seems  to  the  Committee 
much  diminished  by  certain  facts.  That  the  University 
Faculty  had  drawn  up  a  petition  to  the  Regents  with  refer- 
ence to  proposed  dismissals  and  demotion  had  been  published 
in  the  city  newspapers,  and  even  in  conspicuous  headlines  in 
those  newspapers,  on  March  9,  and  in  the  college  newspaper 
on  March  10.  It  is,  therefore,  somewhat  difficult  to  suppose 
that  all  the  Regents  as  individuals  were  unaware  on  March 
17  that  a  communication  had  been  submitted  by  the  Faculty, 
relating  to  the  matters  of  business  then  before  the  Board.  It 
was,  in  fact,  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  throughout  the 
city  and  state  that  petitions  bearing  on  these  matters  had 
been  sent  in,  not  only  by  the  Faculty,  but  also  (in  much 
more  emphatic  terms),  by  the  students,  the  Alumni  Asso- 
ciation, the  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  and  one  or  two 
other  organizations.  That  they  had  before  them  a  mass  of 
protests  against  the  acceptance  of  the  President's  recom- 
mendations without  a  thorough  investigation,  was  the  capi- 
tal fact  confronting  the  Regents  at  their  meeting.  The 
" Public  Statement"  adopted  at  that  meeting  twice  refers 
to  requests  for  an  investigation.  Furthermore,  President 
Kingsbury  who  was  present  at  this  meeting  of  the  Board, 
was  also  well  aware  of  the  action  of  the  Faculty.  Again, 
it  seems  to  the  Committee  an  unusual  procedure  for  a 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        47 

public  body  to  postpone  the  hearing  of  petitions  relating 
to  a  pending  matter  until  after  the  matter  is  disposed  of; 
this,  however,  was,  by  the  Board's  Statement,  its  procedure 
on  March  17.  The  Committee  is,  therefore,  unable  to  con- 
clude that  the  Board  as  a  whole  was  ignorant  that  the 
Faculty  and  other  bodies  had  addressed  it,  asking  it  to 
investigate  the  charges  before  acting;  and  it  is  compelled 
to  believe  that  the  failure  of  the  Secretary's  "best  endeav- 
ors" to  have  these  communications  considered  was  essen- 
tially due  to  the  Board's  frequently  announced  resolution 
to  sustain  the  President  without  an  investigation. 

The  Board  of  Regents  further  explains  to  this  Committee 
that,  though  it  did  not  receive  the  Faculty  petition,  it  "has 
done  just  exactly  what  the  petition  requested,  without  know- 
ing that  the  petition  was  there,"  inasmuch  as  "an  oppor- 
tunity for  full  hearing  to  Dr.  Knowlton,  Associate  Professor 
Wise  and  Instructors  Snow  and  Bing,  was  afforded."  That 
the  Board  did  in  fact  offer  these  teachers  a  hearing  has  al- 
ready been  indicated.  It  appears,  however,  somewhat 
excessive  to  suggest  that  the  Board's  action  was  in  substan- 
tial conformity  with  the  Faculty's  request.  The  Committee 
is  unable  to  suppose,  and  can  not  assume  that  the  Board 
supposed,  that  the  Faculty  was  petitioning  for  a  hearing 
which  should  have  no  influence  upon  the  Board's  acceptance 
or  rejection  of  the  President's  recommendations.  The 
Board,  however,  by  its  own  statement,  adopted  at  the  meet- 
ing at  which  the  recommendations  were  considered,  declared 
that  "no  judicial  or  other  investigation  could  change  or  ob- 
viate the  fact"  which  led  the  Board  to  sustain  those  recom- 
mendations. The  petition,  moreover,  asked  for  a  hearing 
for  each  of  the  men  "affected  adversely  by  the  recent  recom- 
mendations of  the  President."  One  of  the  men  so  affected 
was  Professor  Marshall,  who  after  many  years'  service  was 
superseded  in  the  headship  of  the  English  department  by 
the  appointment  of  Mr.  O.  J.  P.  Widtsoe,  Principal  of  the 
Latter  Day  Saints  High  School,  to  that  position.  It  was 
intimated  by  the  President  and  the  Board*  that  Professor 

*  "Public  Statement,"  page  14. 


48     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

Marshall's  demotion  was  due  to  inefficiency,  a  charge  re- 
garded as  unfair  by  many  of  his  colleagues  and  former  stu- 
dents, and  believed  by  them  not  to  correspond  to  the  Presi- 
dent's real  motive  in  making  the  change.  The  Committee 
has  not  learned  that  any  investigation  into  these  matters 
was  offered  Professor  Marshall. 

3.  The  Board's  most  significant  answer  to  the  complaint 
that  the  University  Faculty  has  hitherto  been  unable  to  get 
its  views  and  its  requests  properly  presented  to,  and  consid- 
ered by,  the  Board  is,  in  substance,  a  recognition  of  the 
justice  of  the  complaint,  together  with  a  plan  for  the  future 
correction  of  the  condition  complained  of.  In  a  communi- 
cation to  an  alumni  committee  on  April  13,*  the  Board, 
speaking  of  the  "alleged  inadequacy  of  consultation  between 
the  Faculty  and  Regents  which  has  characterized  our  prac- 
tice in  the  past,"  does  not  deny  the  allegations,  but  announces 
the  adoption  of  measures  for  securing  fuller  consultations 
between  the  two  bodies  hereafter.  The  first  step  to  this  end 
was  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution  on  March  27, 
1915: 

Resolved:  That  the  Chairman  appoint  a  committee  of  five  on 
Faculty  Relations,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  keep  posted  on  the 
views  of  the  Faculty  and  to  report  the  same  to  the  Board;  and  the 
Faculty  is  hereby  invited  to  constitute  such  committees  as  it  may 
see  fit  with  such  respective  duties  and  powers  as  it  may  give  from 
time  to  time;  and  the  Faculty  may  provide  how  the  Board  shall 
be  advised  of  its  views. 

A  committee  of  seven  members  of  the  Faculty  appointed 
to  devise  a  method  for  carrying  the  above  resolution  into 
effect  has  recommended  the  following  "Plan  of  Adminis- 
tration:" 

1.  There  shall  be  established  an  Administrative  Council  of  the 
University  of  Utah.  The  President  and  Deans  of  the  Schools 
shall  be  ex  officio  members  of  the  Administrative  Council,  and  the 

*  Published  in  Salt  Lake  City  newspapers  on  April  14. 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        49 

Faculty  shall  elect  from  its  own  body  members  whose  number 
shall  be  two  more  than  the  number  of  ex  offlcio  members. 

2.  The  President  of  the  University  shall  be  ex  officio  chairman 
of  the  Administrative  Council  and  its  executive  officer. 

3.  The  Administrative  Council  shall  determine,  subject  to  the 
approval  of  the  Board  of  Regents,  all  matters  pertaining  to  the 
educational  policy  and  educational  administration  of  the  Uni- 
versity.    Examples  of  these  matters  are — requests  for  appropria- 
tions, apportionment  of  funds,  the  appointment,  promotion,  de- 
motion, removal,  or  failure  to  recommend  for  reappointment, 
members  of  the  teaching  force,  and  such  other  matters  as  may  be 
referred  to  the  Council  by  the  President,  Board  of  Regents,  or  the 
Faculty. 

4.  All  appointments,  removals  or  changes  in  rank  of  members 
of  the  teaching  force  shall  be  made  upon  recommendation  of  the 
President  to  the  Administrative  Council  after  consultation  with 
heads  of  Departments  and  Deans  of  Schools  concerned. 

5.  All  legislative  power  shall  be  vested  in  the  Faculty  of  the 
University. 

6.  The  Administrative   Council  shall  hold  regular  monthly 
meetings  during  the  school  year,  and  such  special  meetings  as  may 
be  found  necessary. 

7.  Of  the  members  of  the  Administrative  Council  elected  by 
the  Faculty,  one-half  shall  be  elected  for  one  year,  and  the  re- 
mainder shall  be  elected  for  two  years.     Their  successors  shall  be 
elected  for  two  years;  they  shall  be  elected  by  secret  ballot,  and  a 
majority  of  all  votes  cast  shall  be  necessary  to  election. 

8.  A  record  shall  be  kept  of  all  actions  of  the  Administrative 
Council.     The  record  shall  be  open  to  inspection  by  the  Faculty 
and  Board  of  Regents.     All  votes  on  matters  of  policy  or  admin- 
istration shall  be  by  roll  call  and  the  names  of  the  voters  and  the 
way  in  which  their  ballots  are  cast  shall  be  part  of  the  record. 

9.  The  regular  medium  of  communication  with  the  Regents 
shall  be  the  Administrative  Council,  but  the  Faculty  may  at  any 
time  communicate  with  the  Regents  by  conference,  resolution, 
special  committee,  or  otherwise. 

The  Committee  has  asked  the  Dean  of  the  School  of 
Education,  Professor  Milton  Bennion  to  inform  it  whether 
the  complete  plan  has  been  officially  adopted.  Mr.  Ben- 
nion replies  on  April  23 : 


50     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

We  have  assurance  from  the  Regents'  Committee  on  Faculty 
Relations  that  we  may  go  ahead  with  the  operation  of  this  plan 
and  amend  it  from  time  to  time  without  presenting  it  to  them  for 
approval.  The  Chairman  of  the  Faculty  Committee  has  just 
received  a  letter  from  the  Chairman  of  the  Regents'  Committee 
suggesting  that  we  provide  specifically  for  transmitting  both  ma- 
jority and  minority  Faculty  views  to  the  Regents  whenever  there 
is  a  difference  of  opinion  on  important  matters  or  a  difference  be- 
tween the  Faculty  and  the  President.  If  the  plan  is  modified 
before  being  put  into  operation,  it  will  be  in  conformity  with  the 
wishes  of  the  majority  of  the  Faculty.  Pending  the  adoption  of 
this  plan  and  the  election  of  the  Council,  the  members  of  the  Fac- 
ulty who  have  not  resigned  have  elected  by  a  secret  ballot  six  of 
their  number  to  act  with  the  President  and  the  three  Deans  who 
have  not  resigned  as  a  temporary  Administrative  Council.  The 
Regents'  Committee  on  Faculty  Relations  has  had  several  meet- 
ings with  the  Faculty  during  the  past  few  weeks.  At  two  such 
meetings  held  this  week,  the  problems  of  freedom  of  teaching, 
political  activity  on  the  part  of  Faculty  members,  and  tenure  of 
office  were  freely  discussed  by  both  Regents  and  Faculty  members. 
There  seems  now  to  be  a  thorough  understanding  between  the 
faculty  and  the  Regents'  Committee  in  regard  to  these  matters. 

The  Committee  views  these  changes  in  the  plan  of  admin- 
istration of  the  University  of  Utah  with  much  satisfaction. 
They  provide  practicable  means  for  the  correction  of  two  of 
the  most  serious  imperfections  in  the  constitution  of  most 
American  colleges  and  universities,  namely:  the  lack  of  con- 
ference, and  frequently  of  a  good  understanding,  between 
the  two  legislative  bodies  of  such  institutions,  the  Faculty 
and  the  Board  of  Trustees;  and  the  anomalous  position  of 
the  college  president,  as  the  only  representative  before  the 
board  of  trustees,  of  the  views  and  wishes  of  a  faculty  which 
does  not  select  him  as  its  representative,  and  to  which  he  is 
in  no  way  responsible.  The  scheme  of  organization  pro- 
posed for  adoption  at  the  University  of  Utah  might,  in  the 
Committee's  opinion,  be  considered  and  imitated  with  ad- 
vantage by  many  other  universities  and  colleges. 

The  Committee  feels,  however,  obliged  to  add  that  its 
satisfaction  in  learning  of  these  changes  in  the  administra- 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  A.T  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        51 

tive  machinery  of  the  University  is  sensibly  decreased  by 
certain  circumstances  which  must  be  mentioned. 

(a)  The  Board  of  Regents  has  refused  to  apply  the  new 
plan  of  action  to  the  cases  which  came  before  it  during 
March,  1915.     Initiated  only  ten  days  after  the  meeting  of 
March  17,  the  plan  was  peculiarly  applicable  to  the  situa- 
tion then  existing,  inasmuch  as  it  was  adopted  in  recognition 
of  the  fact  that  the  Board  had  not  hitherto  had  so  full 
knowledge  as  was  desirable  of  the  judgment  and  the  state  of 
feeling  of  the  Faculty.     By  suspending  its  action  until  coun- 
sel should  be  taken  with  the  Faculty,  the  Board  would  not 
only  have  given  convincing  evidence  of  the  earnestness  of  its 
desire  to  do  justice  to  the  views  of  the  teaching  staff,  but 
would  also  have  done  much  to  put  an  end  to  the  dissatis- 
faction, suspicion  and  public  criticism  to  which  its  previous 
action  had  already  given  rise.     The  Committee  deeply  re- 
grets that  this  course  was  not  followed  by  the  Board. 

(b)  The  Board,  so  far  as  the  Committee  is  aware,  has  at 
no  time  indicated  its  abandonment  of  the  rule  of  policy  upon 
which  the  Committee  has  already  animadverted;  indeed,  the 
most  extreme  expression  of  that  policy  has  been  published 
since  the  adoption  of  the  plan  for  a  "Faculty  Relations  Com- 
mittee/'   The  Regents  still  stand  publicly  committed  to 
the  principle  that,  whenever  a  superior  officer  declares  the 
existence  of  an  "irreparable  breach"  between  himself  and 
any  subordinates,  the  Board  will  not  inquire  who  is  right 
and  who  is  wrong  in  the  disagreement,  but  will  simply  retain 
the  officer  whose  services  are  deemed  more  valuable,  and 
dismiss  the  others.     Until  this  principle  is  definitely  repu- 
diated by  the  Board,  the  Committee  is  unable  to  see  how 
recommendations  from  a  Faculty  Committee  can  have  any 
relevancy  to  the  considerations  which  actually  move  the 
Board  in  its  action  upon  recommendations  of  the  President. 
The  Faculty  recommendations,  in  such  a  matter,  presum- 
ably can  deal  only  with  the  merits  of  the  case;  but  the  Board 
has  twice  officially  announced,  and  has  never  withdrawn  the 
announcement,  that  it  is  not  concerned  with  the  merits  of 
the  case. 


52     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

In  view  of  these  circumstances,  the  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee feel  constrained  to  reserve  final  judgment  as  to  the 
actual  effects  of  the  new  plan  until  its  working  under  local 
conditions  has  been  tested  by  experience. 

The  Committee  thinks  it  incumbent  upon  it,  as  a  matter 
of  justice,  to  make  two  remarks  concerning  the  members  of 
the  Utah  Faculty  who  resigned  between  March  18  and  27. 
The  importance  attached  by  the  Board  to  the  new  adminis- 
trative plan  is  manifestly  equivalent  to  an  acknowledgment 
that  there  were  substantial  grounds  for  the  protest  made  by 
these  teachers  against  antecedent  conditions.  And  if,  as 
the  Committee  earnestly  hopes,  beneficent  consequences  to 
the  University  eventually  result  from  the  adoption  of  this 
reform,  the  credit  must  primarily  be  given  to  the  men  who, 
at  the  cost  of  personal  sacrifices,  made  the  protest  necessary 
to  bring  the  reform  about. 


III.  THE  COMPLAINT  OF  "REPRESSION" 

Several  of  the  resigning  professors  charge  that  the  recent 
policy  of  the  University  administration  has  been  character- 
ized by  an  effort  to  repress  the  legitimate  liberty  of  utterance 
of  members  of  the  Faculty  upon  political,  economic  and 
religious  questions.  It  is  not  charged  that  this  in  any  case 
led  to  dismissal,  but  only  that  a  number  of  teachers  were  on 
various  occasions  summoned  to  the  President's  office  and 
given  what  they  construed  to  be  official  warnings  against  the 
repetition  of  certain  public  utterances,  or  the  continuance  of 
certain  civic  activities.  It  seems  clear  that  the  action  of 
the  President  in  these  instances  was  not  due  to  any  personal 
desire  to  restrict  the  freedom  of  expression  of  teachers  on 
such  matters,  but  to  an  apprehensiveness  with  regard  to  the 
effect  of  certain  professional  utterances  upon  influential  citi- 
zens, or  upon  the  Board  of  Regents,  the  State  Legislature, 
or  the  Governor,  and  consequently  upon  the  amount  of  the 
appropriations  received  by  the  University.  An  illustration 
of  the  character  and  motive  of  the  President's  intervention 
in  relation  to  the  discussion  of  religious  questions  by  pro- 
fessors, is  given  in  extracts  from  a  letter  addressed  to  Presi- 
dent Kingsbury  on  March  26,  1915,  by  Dr.  Joseph  Peter- 
son, Professor  of  Psychology: 

MY  DEAR  DR.  KINGSBURY:  Following  is  as  specific  a  statement 
as  my  memory  permits  of  instances  of  advice  from  you  as  to  the 
need  of  being  careful  in  my  teaching  here : 

(1)  Nearly  three  years  ago,  or  at  least  over  two,  you  called  me 
to  your  office  and  told  me  that  "a  very  influential  man"  in  the 
city  had  objected  to  certain  of  my  teachings  in  Genetic  Psychology, 
and  had  said  that  if  his  children  had  to  get  such  things  in  the 
University  he  would  send  them  elsewhere.  You  also  said  that  I 
had  been  charged  with  teachings  such  that  my  students  did  not 
care  for  their  religion  and  that  they  were  not  willing  to  go  on  mis- 
sions. You  named as  an  example  of  the  former 

53 


54     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

condition.  I  pointed  out  that  he  had  not  been  in  any  of  my 
classes  in  the  University.  I  named  students  of  mine  who  had 
gone,  and  were  then  on  missions,  and  some  who  were  then  talking 

of  going  on  missions.     I  remember  naming  to  you , 

among  others.  I  also  pointed  out  the  fact  that  such  conditions 
as  to  students'  attitudes  toward  religion  were  frequent  results  of 
college  education,  and  that  it  was  unjust  to  charge  all  of  them  to 
my  teachings.  You  agreed  to  this. 

(2)  Later,  just  before  my  reappointment  two  years  ago,  you 
again  called  me  into  the  office.     You  told  me  that  "  certain  Re- 
gents," or  "a  certain  member  of  the  Board  of  Regents" — I  do 
not  remember  just  which — had  brought  to  you  certain  criticisms 
of  me,  that,  e.g.,  I" had  taught  against  the  experiences  of  Joseph 
Smith."     This  I  denied,  and  offered  you  means  of  proof  that  I 
had  not  done  this,  that  I  had  never  referred  to  or  made  insinua- 
tions concerning  such  affairs.    You  also  said  at  this  time  that 
certain  Regents,  or  a  certain  Regent,  had  said  that  some  of  the 
members  of  the  Legislature  were  not  willing  to  make  the  needed 
appropriations  to  the  University  because  of  my  being  here.    You 
advised  me  to  be  extremely  careful,  "not  even  to  mention  the  word 
religion,"  so  that  people  would  not'  feel  this  way  towards  the 
University.     I  told  you  later  that  I  went  twice  to  your  office  to 
resign,  so  that  the  University  might  not  miss  any  appropriations 
on  my  account.    You  were  not  in,  and  in  the  meantime  a  colleague 
convinced  me  (in  his  own  words)  "that  the  University  needs  some- 
thing else  more  than  it  does  large  appropriations." 

(3)  Later  I  learned  that  you  had  defended  me,  as  I  remember,  to 
Regents,  as  to  my  fairness  in  teaching  in  the  University;  you  ad- 
vised me,  however,  incidentally,  to  bring  into  class  discussions 
and  explanations  the  term  God  or  Deity,  if  I  "could  conscientiously 
do  so." 

In  these  conversations  your  own  attitude  towards  me  was 
friendly  and  obviously  to  protect  me,  though  after  the  conversa- 
tion I  felt  personally  that  my  presence  here  was  beginning  to  be 
embarrassing  to  you.  Of  this  view  I  was  very  much  disabused 
in  a  conversation  with  you  a  year  or  so  ago,  after  which  I  con- 
cluded that  you  actually  were  anxious  for  me  to  remain  hi  the 
University.  In  this  conversation  you  had  pointed  out  to  me  that 
my  presence  here  is  evidence  that  the  Church  is  not  controlling 
the  University. 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        55 

Other  examples  of  this  practice  on  the  part  of  President 
Kingsbury  are  given  in  a  letter  to  the  Committee  from  Dr. 
W.  G.  Roylance,  Professor  of  History  and  Political  Science: 

(1)  Upon  request  of  a  number  of  citizens,  including  members 
of  the  Legislature,  a  professor  gave  advice  and  assistance  in  the 
construction  of  a  Public  Utilities  Bill  and  was  told  by  the  Presi- 
dent that  an  objection  had  come  to  him,  coupled  with  a  threat 
that  if  such  activity  did  not  cease,  the  University's  appropria- 
tions would  be  cut  off.     The  President  declined  to  disclose  the 
source  of  this  complaint  and  threat,  nor  would  he  either  approve 
or  disapprove  of  the  action  in  question. 

(2)  In  numerous  instances  of  complaint  to  the  President  of 
utterances  of  professors  in  the  classroom,  bearing  upon  religion, 
politics  and  other  matters,  after  proof  that  nothing  improper  had 
been  said,  instead  of  upholding  the  accused  and  vindicated  in- 
structor, the  President  would  avail  himself  of  the  incident,  as  an 
opportunity  to  impress  upon  the  instructor  the  need  of  caution. 

(3)  In  general,  the  President  has  fallen  into  the  habit  of  placing 
instructors  always  on  the  defensive,  with  regard  to  complaints 
from  without,  yet  has  failed  clearly  to  vindicate  them  when  com- 
plaints of  charges  have  proven  groundless. 

Several  other  instances  of  a  similar  sort  have  been  reported 
to  the  Committee;  some  of  them  are  referred  to  under  (3)  in 
the  Faculty  petition  of  October  28, 1913,  already  cited.  Mr. 
Milton  Sevy,  a  member  of  the  graduating  class  of  1914,  de- 
poses that  in  conversation  with  President  Kingsbury  in 
June,  1914,  the  President  admonished  him  that  he  should 

Be  careful  in  saying  anything  that  would  offend  any  supporter 
of  the  University;  that  when  various  interests  were  supporting 
the  University  by  taxation  they  were  very  sensitive  about  being 
criticized.  I  replied  that  in  my  opinion  the  University  should 
not  yield  to  the  criticism  of  outside  interests,  and  that  students  as 
well  as  Faculty  members  should  be  permitted  to  investigate  and 
speak  frankly  about  all  matters  of  public  importance.  I  cited  him 
the  example  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin.  This  seemed  rather 
to  shift  the  trend  of  the  President's  criticism,  and  he  said  that  if 
he  were  in  a  position  to  conduct  the  University  as  he  wished  there 
would  be  even  greater  academic  freedom  at  the  University  than  I 


56     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

had  suggested.  He  further  said  that  I  could  not  realize  the  vari- 
ous forces  brought  to  bear  on  him  as  President  of  the  University. 

I  told  him  that  I  sympathized  greatly  with  him  in 

his  position,  but  I  thought  it  a  shame  that  the  President  of  the 
University  should  have  to  submit  to  outside  interference.  I 
further  stated  that  in  my  opinion,  if  the  people  of  the  State  knew 
the  character  of  the  interference  he  was  obliged  to  tolerate,  they 
would  rally  behind  him  in  his  adoption  of  a  broad,  progressive 
administrative  policy,  like  that  which  I  had  argued  for  in  my 
commencement  speech. 

It  appears  from  this  testimony  that  President  Kingsbury 
has  himself  admitted  that  there  exists  at  the  University  less 
academic  freedom  than  he  regards  as  desirable.  With  refer- 
ence to  the  general  situation  in  the  University,  the  follow- 
ing question  was  put  by  this  Committee  to  President 
Kingsbury: 

Question:  Does  the  President  feel  that  in  view  of  local  condi- 
tions it  is  necessary  to  restrict  the  utterances  and  the  civic  activi- 
ity  of  professors  in  the  University  of  Utah  to  a  greater  degree  than 
might  be  needful  elsewhere? 

Answer:  Probably  not  any  more  than  in  several  other  state 
universities. 

The  Committee  is  also  in  receipt  of  a  signed  article  by 
Regent  Richard  W.  Young,  Esq.,  written  for  the  purpose 
of  justifying  the  President  and  Board  of  Regents,  but 
acknowledging  the  occurrence  of  certain  incidents  of  the 
kind  complained  of  by  the  resigning  professors  and  con- 
ceding that  there  may  have  been  other  such  incidents. 
Mr.  Young  acknowledges: 

That  the  President  had  warned  a  certain  prominent  professor 
that  his  activity  in  behalf  of  a  public  utilities  bill  might  injure  the 
University;  that  he  advised  an  instructor  against  participating  in  a 
political  campaign,  and  enjoined  a  partisan  rally  on  the  campus. 

In  doing  these  things,  President  Kingsbury  was  actuated  by  an 
abundance  (possibly  a  superabundance)  of  caution.  He  feared, 
with  much  reason,  that  there  might  be  a  disposition,  human, 
though  illogical,  to  visit  the  political  sins  of  the  professors  on  the 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH         57 

school  itself.  He  appreciated  that  the  University  moves  and  has 
its  being,  not  in  the  pure  ether  of  theory,  but  in  the  vitiated 
atmosphere  of  Earth. 

Occurrences  of  this  kind  Mr.  Young  describes  as  "trifles," 
and  he  apparently  does  not  regard  such  "  superabur  dance 
of  caution'7  on  the  part  of  the  President  as  giving  just 
ground  for  criticism. 

The  state  of  things  disclosed  by  this  testimony  is  mani- 
festly an  extremely  unwholesome  one.     In  particular,  the 
first  incident  related  by  Professor  Roylance  must,  it  appears 
to  the  Committee,  be  of  grave  interest  to  the  citizens  of 
Utah;  an  official  investigation  is  clearly  called  for,  to  deter- 
mine whether  the  person  who  made  the  threat  repeated  by 
the  President  holds — as  would  appear  to  be  suggested— 
some  important  public  office.     There  exists,  doubtless,  in 
the  case  of  any  state  university,  a  danger  that  from  time  to 
time  persons  possessing,  or  reputed  to  possess,  political  in- 
fluence will  attempt  to  shape  the  teaching  in  the  University, 
or  to  restrict  the  legitimate  liberty  of  utterance  and  of  civic 
action  of  university  teachers,  not  by  direct  attack,  but  by 
threats  of  reduction  of  the  appropriations.     If  our  state 
universities  are  to  continue  to  be  institutions  in  which  self- 
respecting  scholars  can  serve,  or  in  which  the  true  character 
of  a  university  is  maintained,  it  is  essential  that  all  such  at- 
tempts be  vigorously  resented,  and  that  no  ground  be  given 
even  for  the  suspicion  that  teachers  in  these  institutions  are 
under  pressure  of  the  sort  exemplified  in  the  first  case  cited 
by  Professor  Roylance.     There  may  be  room  for  legitimate 
debate  concerning  the  proper  limits  of  freedom  of  teaching; 
there  can  be  no  room  for  debate  as  to  the  impropriety  of 
permitting   powerful   individuals   outside   the   university, 
whether  in  or  out  of  public  office,  to  dictate  to  university 
presidents  respecting  the  utterances  of  university  professors. 
And  the  resistance  to  such  attempts  must  necessarily  come 
first  and  chiefly  from  the  presidents  of  the  state  universities. 
To  the  Committee  it  seems  clear  that  President  Kingsbury, 
while  personally  desirous  of  maintaining  a  due  measure  of 


58     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

freedom  in  the  University  of  Utah,  has  not  sufficiently  re- 
sisted pressure  of  the  sort  mentioned,  but  has  rather,  at 
times,  permitted  himself  to  be  used  as  an  instrument  through 
which  such  pressure  was  transmitted  to  members  of  the 
Faculty.  The  Committee  recognizes  that  the  President's 
motive  in  this  was  doubtless  an  earnest  desire  to  avoid  injury 
to  what  he  believed  to  be  the  interests  of  the  University; 
but  it  can  not  consider  that  he  has  adequately  realized  the 
truth  of  the  observation  of  one  of  his  colleagues,  that  "the 
University  needs  something  else  more  than  it  needs  large 
appropriations/' 

The  only  admissible  view  with  respect  both  to  freedom  of 
teaching  within  a  state  university,  and  to  the  legitimate 
extra-academic  activities  of  teachers  in  such  institutions, 
seems  to  the  Committee  to  have  been  expressed  with  admir- 
able clearness  and  force  in  the  recent  report  made  to  the 
legislature  of  Wisconsin  by  the  State  Board  of  Public  Af- 
fairs, a  non-academic  body.  As  the  principles  enunciated 
by  that  Board  clearly  have  not  hitherto  been  fully  realized 
at  the  University  of  Utah,  the  Committee  thinks  it  pertinent 
to  quote  several  passages  of  the  report : 

Certain  activities  of  the  University  have  taken  it  into  the 
domain  of  public  affairs  to  an  extent  which  has  resulted  in  the 
charge  that  the  University  is  in  politics.  Complaint  has  been 
made  that  members  of  the  Faculty  appear  before  committees  of 
the  Legislature  in  advocacy  of  or  in  opposition  to  pending  meas- 
ures affecting  the  University  as  a  whole  or  certain  of  its  colleges, 
schools  or  departments.  In  the  opinion  of  this  Board  it  would 
be  impossible  for  the  Legislature  to  act  wisely  with  regard  to  any 
bill  affecting  the  University  without  consulting  those  in  charge  of 
the  department,  college  or  school  to  be  affected 

Complaint  has  been  made  also  that  members  of  the  Faculty 
have  framed  and  advocated  legislation.  In  recent  years,  while 
the  state  has  been  attempting  to  meet  economic  and  industrial 
needs  by  new  legislation  it  has  been  a  common  practice  to  consult 
with  those  who  have  studied  and  written  of  those  problems.  In 
the  University  Faculty  there  have  been  and  now  are  men  who  by 
reason  of  a  life-time  of  study  are  familiar  with  the  various  phases 
of  these  problems  as  they  have  developed  and  as  they  have  been 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        59 

treated  in  other  countries  and  states.  Many  of  those  urging 
legislation  along  these  lines  have  read  the  writings  of  these  men, 
and  not  infrequently  legislators,  attempting  to  apply  the  experi- 
ence of  other  states  and  countries  to  Wisconsin  conditions,  have 
sought  personal  interviews  with  those  professors  having  special 
knowledge  of  the  subject  under  consideration.  In  the  opinion 
of  this  Board,  the  state,  having  engaged  the  services  of  the  men 
in  the  University  Faculty,  is  entitled  to  such  advice  and  counsel 
as  these  men  can  give  regarding  the  subjects  to  which  they  have 
devoted  much  and  special  attention 

That  occasionally  members  of  the  University  faculty  have  been 
active  at  election  time  has  been  charged  and  is  true.  In  the 
opinion  of  the  board  of  public  affairs  it  is  neither  possible  nor  de- 
sirable to  deprive  a  college  professor  of  the  political  rights  vouch- 
safed to  every  citizen.  Investigation  shows  that  in  so  far  as  stu- 
dents, Faculty  members  and  Regents  are  hi  politics  as  individuals, 
the  University  of  Wisconsin  is  in  politics.  Students  form  political 
organizations,  both  partisan  and  factional,  representing  every 
faction  and  every  party.  Members  of  the  faculty  on  occasions 
address  these  student  clubs  and  give  expression  to  personal  con- 
victions. In  so  doing,  students,  Professors  and  Regents,  in  the 
opinion  of  this  Board,  have  exercised  only  their  rights  to  inde- 
pendent thought  and  action  as  individuals  and  citizens 

In  the  opinion  of  this  Board,  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the 
state  to  prevent  or  discourage  political  activity  along  broad  lines 
would  be  un-American.  The  University  of  Wisconsin  is  a  public 
institution.  Its  politics  and  practices  are  determined  by  public 
opinion.  So  long  as  the  University  continues  as  a  part  of  the 
state,  so  long  must  the  State  preserve  freedom  of  expression  and 
action  regarding  it 

Conflict  of  interest  and  opinion  naturally  begets  misunder- 
standing and  misrepresentation.  Motives  are  questioned  and 
opposition  engendered  to  such  an  extent  that  those  who  represent 
the  institution  frequently  are  made  to  quail  before  the  attack. 
Therefore,  the  people  well  may  look  with  concern  upon  assaults 
calculated  to  impair  the  usefulness  of  the  institution.  In  such 
crises  it  is  the  duty  of  the  state  to  defend  freedom  of  investigation, 
freedom  of  instruction,  and  freedom  of  opinion  and  expression  in 
its  University  to  the  end  that  academic  freedom  may  not  be  an 
empty  phrase,  but  shall  be  a  living  fact.  (Report  upon  the  Sur- 
vey of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  December,  1914.  Madison, 
Wisconsin:  State  Printer,  pp.  9-13.) 


IV.  INTERVENTION  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  OF  THE 
STATE  IN  FACULTY  MATTERS 

The  Committee  turns  now  to  examine  into  an  incident 
which,  while  it  is  essentially  merely  a  further  illustration  of 
the  conditions  set  forth  in  the  preceding  section  of  this  re- 
port, acquires  special  significance  because  of  the  part  which 
the  Governor  of  the  State  is  alleged  to  have  played  in  it. 

The  incident  had  its  origin  in  a  class  oration  delivered  by 
Mr.  Milton  H.  Sevy,  a  member  of  the  graduating  class  of 
1914,  at  the  Commencement  of  that  year.  The  oration,  of 
which  a  copy  is  before  the  Committee,  is  in  general  a  plea 
for  an  abandonment  of  the  ultra-conservatism  which  the 
speaker  declares  to  have  been  long  characteristic  of  Utah, 
and  to  have  secured  "an  octopus-like  grasp  upon  our  politi- 
cal life."  The  principal  contention  of  the  disclosure  is 
illustrated  by  the  following  citations: 

What  we  need  is  a  different  point  of  view.  The  people  must 
be  converted  that  their  political  hope  lies  in  the  breaking  down  of 
ultra-conservatism  and  in  the  leadership  of  young,  progressive 
men.  The  time  is  ripe  for  this  change;  only  the  proper  leadership 
is  needed.  There  are  many  young  men  in  Utah,  graduates  of  other 
colleges,  graduates  from  our  own  institution,  and  men  without 
college  education,  who  are  ready  and  willing  to  disregard  political 
differences  and  fight  to  place  Utah  on  the  progressive  map.  This 
transformation  will  take  some  time;  the  new  leaders  must  fight 
against  the  inertia  of  the  established  prestige  of  present  leaders; 
but  here  is  an  urgent  present  need  in  the  state,  a  need  which  calls 
to  the  University  as  an  institution  and  to  its  graduates,  to  assume 
the  role  of  leadership 

Granted  that  these  problems  are  vital  and  a  solution  desirable, 
you  will  say,  how  is  the  University  to  adjust  itself  to  meet  them? 
Already  the  pioneer  work  is  under  way.  The  extension  work, 
the  correspondence  work,  the  social  survey  work,  and  above  all, 
the  new  life  and  vigor  now  being  generated  within  the  alumni 

60 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        61 

organization  are  all  steps  leading  towards  the  desired  goal.  But 
this  is  not  sufficient.  What  the  University  most  needs,  and  must 
have,  if  it  is  to  assume  the  role  of  leadership,  is  a  definite,  vigor- 
ous, progressive  policy.  It  should  strike  out  and  generate  public 
opinion  and  public  policy,  instead  of  occupying  a  compromise 
position.  Unfortunately,  there  still  remains  some  vestige  of  the 
old-time  church  antagonism.  Some  provincial  ideas  and  narrow 
prejudices  are  still  held  by  representatives  of  all  factions.  In  the 
past,  diplomacy  has  demanded  that  the  University  attempt  to 
placate  all  factions  by  following  the  happy  mean  as  a  policy.  But 
we  have  now  reached  a  crisis  in  our  development ;  we  can  not  grow 
as  we  should  under  such  a  policy;  we  must  have  a  broader  and 
bigger  outlook.  This  lingering  ghost  of  former  troubles  should 
now  be  banished  from  our  midst;  it  should  no  longer  have  a  hear- 
ing in  our  council  chambers  in  determining  the  policy  of  our  insti- 
tutions. The  University  should  help  deliver  this  death  blow  by 
adopting  a  broad,  definite  and  progressive  policy,  and  then  carry- 
ing that  policy  into  effect — regardless  of  the  outside  criticism  of 
Reverend  A.,  Bishop  B.,  or  Taxpayer  C.  If  this  condition  pre- 
vailed, then  the  taxpayers  throughout  the  state  would  have  in- 
finitely greater  confidence  in  their  state  institution,  and  this  con- 
fidence would  be  measured  in  greater  appropriations.  The  Uni- 
versity would  then  become,  in  a  true  sense,  the  great  dynamic 
force  in  the  state. 

The  speaker  incidentally  argued  briefly  in  favor  of  four 
specific  measures:  A  public  utilities  commission,  an  inves- 
tigation into  the  methods  of  mining  and  industrial  corpora- 
tions, a  more  liberal  support  of  the  juvenile  court,  and  re- 
forms in  the  State's  sytem  of  taxation.  In  referring  to  the 
last,  the  speaker  complimented  Governor  Spry  upon  having 
taken  the  initiative  in  this  reform.  The  oration  contained 
a  single  sentence  reflecting  upon  some  legislators  for  the 
reasons  alleged  to  have  been  given  by  them  for  voting 
against  a  certain  University  appropriation. 

If  a  progressive  point  of  view  prevailed,  state  legislators  would 
be  forced  to  give  better  reasons  for  voting  against  girls'  dormi- 
tories, than  the  one  given  in  1913;  namely,  that  the  housing  of 
cattle  at  the  state  fair  should  take  precedence  over  the  housing  of 
girls  at  the  University. 


62     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

The  Commencement  oration  seems  to  the  Committee, 
whatever  its  limitations  in  thought  and  taste,  to  tend  to 
show  that  the  teachers  in  University  of  Utah  were  giving  to 
its  students  what  ought  especially  to  be  desired  in  graduates 
of  a  state  university — some  independence  of  thought  and  an 
eager  and  liberal-minded  interest  in  public  affairs.  It  is  full 
of  that  hopeful  insurgency  of  youth  upon  which  the  con- 
tinued intellectual  vitality  of  any  community  must  depend. 
To  many  of  its  local  hearers  it  appears  to  have  contained 
especial  promise  and  significance,  as  an  expression  of  the 
temper  of  the  younger  generation  in  the  state.  No  person 
of  generous  mind,  however  much  in  disagreement  with  the 
views  .expressed,  can  have  failed  to  hear  it  at  least  with 
good  humor  and  with  appreciation  of  the  natural  and 
wholesome  youthful  enthusiasm  which  characterized  it. 

It  has,  however,  been  asserted  by  alumni,  by  some  of  the 
resigning  professors  and  others,  that  the  Governor  of  Utah 
took  umbrage  at  this  discourse,  expressed  his  disapproval  of 
it  to  the  University  authorities,  and  brought  pressure  to 
secure  the  disciplining  of  such  professors  as  had  read  and 
approved  of  the  speech  before  its  delivery.  In  inquiring 
into  the  truth  of  these  assertions,  the  committee  laid  the 
following  question  before  President  Kingsbury. 

Question:  Did  the  Governor  of  the  state,  or  any  member  of 
the  State  Administration,  ever  express  to  President  Kingsbury, 
directly  or  indirectly,  an  unfavorable  opinion  of  the  speech  of  Mr. 
Sevy,  delivered  at  the  1914  Commencement? 

Answer:  No. 

The  Committee  regrets  to  state  that  this  answer  does  not 
in  any  way  indicate  the  essential  facts  of  the  matter  about 
which  the  Committee  sought  information,  and  that,  indeed, 
the  answer  can  be  reconciled  with  the  facts  and  with  certain 
other  testimony  only  upon  the  assumption  that  Dr.  Kings- 
bury  gave  to  the  word  " indirectly/7  in  the  above  question,  a 
special  and  unfamiliar  sense.  The  facts  and  testimony  are 
the  following: 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH         63 

(a)  Governor  Spry  on  June  6,  1914,  sent  to  the  Board  of 
Regents  a  long  letter  expressing  strong  indignation  over 
Mr.  Sevy's  speech.     The  letter,  of  which  a  copy  is  before 
the  Committee,  contained  the  following  passage : 

In  attending  the  Commencement  exercises  of  the  University  on 
Wednesday  last,  I  was  amazed  at  the  utterances  of  the  Class 
Valedictorian.  While  the  impulse  was  strong  to  give  public  ex- 
pression of  my  disapproval  of  the  spirit  of  the  address,  and  while 
I  felt  that  the  extravagant  criticisms  should  not  pass  unchallenged, 
I  refrained  mentioning  the  matter  in  my  address,  feeling  that  do- 
ing so  might  embarrass  and  tend  to  mar  the  proceedings  of  the 
day.  However,  deliberate  reflection  upon  the  matter  convinces 
me  that  I  would  be  negligent  to  my  duty  did  I  not  call  .the  matter 
to  the  attention  of  the  Board  of  Regents  and  enter  a  most  vigorous 
protest  against  this  outbreak. 

The  Committee  would,  even  in  the  absence  of  the  testi- 
mony following,  be  unable  to  suppose  that  the  President 
of  the  University  was  unaware  that  the  Governor  had  ex- 
pressed an  unfavorable  opinion  of  the  speech  to  the  Board 
of  Regents,  of  which  body  the  President  is  a  member. 

(b)  Mr.  Milton  H.  Sevy  states  under  oath  that  on  or 
about  June  6,  1914,  he  had  a  long  conference  with  the  Pres- 
ident, at  the  latter's  request.     Mr.  Sevy  deposes  that  on 
this  occasion  the  President  said  in  substance  and  effect: 

That  the  Governor  had  taken  the  matter  of  my  Commencement 
speech  up  with  the  Board  of  Regents  and  they  had  requested  him, 
the  President,  to  speak  to  me  about  it The  Presi- 
dent proceeded  to  admonish  me  to  be  careful  in  saying  anything 
that  would  offend  any  supporters  of  the  University,  that  when 
various  interests  were  supporting  the  University  by  taxation  they 
were  very  sensitive  about  being  criticized,  etc.  [What  follows  in 
the  affidavit,  has  been  cited  above.] 

It  is,  then,  established,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  Gover- 
nor protested  to  the  Regents  against  the  speech;  that  the 
President  knew  of  this  protest;  and  that  in  consequence  of 
it  he  cautioned  the  author  of  the  speech,  on  the  ground  that 


64     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

such  utterances  might  unfavorably  affect  the  University's 
appropriations.*  Thus  far  the  incident  appears  as  an  ex- 
ample of  the  policy  of  repression  already  mentioned. 

It  is,  however,  charged  that  the  Governor  did  not  merely 
indicate  his  disapproval  of  the  speech,  but  brought  pressure 
to  bear  upon  the  President  and  Regents  to  have  them  curb 
or  dismiss  the  individual  teachers  who  had  passed  favorably 
upon  the  speech  before  its  delivery.  With  reference  to  this 
matter  the  Committee  put  the  following  question  to  Presi- 
dent Kingsbury: 

Question:  Did  the  Governor  ever  seek  from  President  Kings- 
bury  or  (so  far  as  Dr.  Kingsbury  is  aware)  from  any  professors, 
information  as  to  what  members  of  the  University  Faculty  had 
read,  or  passed  upon,  Mr.  Sevy's  speech,  before  its  delivery? 

Answer:  No.  The  Governor  did  not  seek  to  find  out  from 
President  Kingsbury  information  as  to  the  person  or  persons  who 
may  have  read  or  passed  upon  Mr.  Sevy's  speech,  nor  did  he  seek 
this  information  from  any  professors,  so  far  as  the  President  knows. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Committee  has  before  it  the  fol- 
lowing evidence  upon  this  point. 
(1)  Mr.  Sevy's  affidavit  states: 

On  or  about  the  4th  of  June,  1914,  Prof.  F.  W.  Reynolds 
of  the  University  of  Utah  met  me,  and  in  referring  to  my  com- 
mencement speech  Professor  Reynolds  asked  laughingly  who  I 
had  had  write  it,  and  said  complaint  had  come  from  the  Govern- 
or's office  accusing  me  of  having  had  my  speech  written  by  mem- 
bers of  the  University  Faculty.  While  walking  from  Douglas 
Avenue  and  Third  South  Street  toward  the  University  he  asked 
if  I  would  have  any  objections  to  a  conference  with  the  Governor 
on  the  matter.  I  answered,  "Not  in  the  least."  He  further 
asked  me  to  call  and  see  President  Kingsbury. 

Mr.  Sevy  deposes  that  in  the  course  of  his  subsequent 
interview  with  Dr.  Kingsbury,  the  President  asked : 

*  It  is,  of  course,  evident  that  the  Governor,  through  his  influence  with 
the  Legislature  and  through  the  veto  power,  was  in  a  position  to  determine 
the  amount  of  the  appropriations. 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        65 

Whether  any  Faculty  members  had  anything  to  do  with  my 
speech,  either  writing  it  or  passing  upon  it.  I  told  him  that  Dean 
Cummings  had  looked  at  it  from  the  standpoint  of  content  and 
Mr.  Snow  and  others  had  heard  it  delivered  from  the  standpoint 
of  declamation.  The  President  said  he  was  glad  Dean  Cummings 
had  examined  it,  because  he  was  a  stand-pat  Republican,  and  it 
had  been  charged  that  Democratic  and  Progressive  Faculty  mem- 
bers were  responsible  for  the  speech. 

It  appears  from  this  sworn  testimony  that  President 
Kingsbury  himself,  as  well  as  Professor  Reynolds,  sought 
to  learn  what  professors  had  passed  upon  the  speech.  The 
testimony  does  not  state  that  this  was  done  at  the  direct 
request  of  the  Governor;  but  it  shows  that  these  inquiries 
were  made  in  consequence  of  communications  received  from 
the  Governor.  The  affidavit  also  contains  evidence  that 
criticism  of  the  speech  was  based  partly  upon  political 
grounds,  and  that  these  criticisms  were  made  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  political  party  to  which  the  Governor 
belongs. 

(2)  The  letter  of  the  Governor  to  the  Board  of  Regents 
definitely  requested  the  Board  to  take  disciplinary  measures 
against  any  teacher  in  the  University  who  might  be  respon- 
sible for  Mr.  Sevy's  suggestion  of  more  liberal  appropria- 
tions for  the  University.*  The  passages  of  the  letter  refer- 
ring to  Faculty  responsibility  for  the  speech  are  here  cited: 

I  had  hoped  that  investigation  would  clear  the  members  of  the 
Faculty  of  the  University  of  any  responsibility  for  the  utterances, 
which  I  sincerely  trusted  could  be  attributed  to  the  inexperience 
and  irresponsibility  of  the  young  man  who  thus  unburdened  him- 
self. From  information  I  have  received,  it  appears,  however, 
that  prior  to  the  delivery  of  the  paper,  members  of  the  Faculty 
passed  upon  it,  and  subsequent  to  its  delivery  have  expressed 
themselves  as  feeling  that  it  was  proper  and  in  good  taste. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  seeds  of  unbridled  criticism  of  state  offi- 
cers and  members  of  the  Legislature,  by  officials  and  members  of 

*  It  is  to  the  single  sentence  of  the  speech  mentioning  this  matter,  that 
the  Governor's  three-page  letter  apparently  refers. 


66     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

the  Faculty  of  the  University  of  Utah  in  their  eagerness  to  secure 
larger  and  ever  larger  appropriations  for  the  institution,  are  bear- 
ing fruit  in  a  generation  of  graduates  who,  unacquainted  with  that 
fine  feeling  of  gratitude  and  appreciation  of  the  state's  interest 
and  generosity  in  their  behalf — that  one  could  hope  and  look  for 
as  the  patrimony  of  higher  education — fail  to  recognize  the  extent 
of  their  obligations,  sneer  at  what  has  been  done  for  them  at  great 
cost  and  ofttimes  great  sacrifice,  and,  with  the  approbation  of 
their  college  professors,  heap  abuse  on  the  state  and  her  institu- 
tions— all  in  utter  disregard  of  the  real  facts. 

In  the  past  the  zeal  of  those  who  have  appeared  before  the 
Legislature  to  urge  appropriations  for  the  University  has  led  them 
to  thoughtless  and  extravagant  statements  calculated  to  minimize 
in  the  minds  of  legislators  the  adequacy  of  the  state's  provision 
for  the  institution,  and  it  appears  that  not  content  with  crying 
"parsimony"  around  the  halls  of  the  Legislature,  officials  of  the 
University  have  carried  the  propaganda  to  the  institution  itself 
with  the  result  that  graduates  have  the  effrontery  to  indulge  in 
unrestrained  abuse  of  the  state.  This  is  wrong,  it  is  a  crying 
shame,  and  the  responsibility  lies  with  officials  of  the  institution 
who  have  permitted  students  to  enjoy  the  advantages  of  the 
University  without  impressing  upon  them  in  some  measure  at 
least  their  obligations  and  their  future  responsibilities.  If  the 
courses  of  the  University  come  no  nearer  providing  accurate  infor- 
mation regarding  the  state  than  was  evidenced  in  the  valedictory 
address  of  last  Wednesday,  I  submit  it  is  high  time  a  hand  be 
taken  in  the  affairs  of  the  institution  to  the  end  that  at  least  with 
relation  to  the  affairs  of  the  commonwealth  of  which  we  expect 
graduates  of  the  institution  to  be  identified,  they  be  supplied  with 
facts  and  not  theories  and  vagaries  of  dreamers  and  dema- 
gogues  

There  is  a  growing  feeling  in  the  state  that  the  burden  [of  tax- 
ation for  educational  purposes]  is  more  than  the  people  can  carry, 
and  I  am  fearful  that  this  sentiment  will  crystallize  in  a  general 
curtailment  of  educational  appropriations.  It  is  this  fear  that 
has  prompted  me  to  speak  to  you  personally  and  impels  me  to 
address  this  letter  to  you,  urging  that  those  who  are  responsible 
in  the  University  for  the  unwarranted,  untrue  ideas  regarding  the 
attitude  the  state  has  taken  toward  educational  matters  and  insti- 
tutions, be  curbed  in  their  utterances  or  relieved  of  their  positions. 
They  are  a  menace  to  the  educational  interests  of  the  state. 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        67 

Let  me  beg  of  the  Board  of  Regents  that  they  take  the  initiative 
in  a  movement  that  will  have  for  its  prime  object  discouragement 
of  the  rapidly  growing  tendency  among  certain  of  our  educators  to 
demand  of  the  people  more  than  the  people  can  give  to  the  inter- 
ests of  education. 

This  letter  shows  unmistakably  that  the  Governor  was 
much  in  earnest  in  desiring  that  action  be  taken  against  any 
members  of  the  Faculty  who  had  inspired  Mr.  Sevy's  ora- 
tion or  had  sanctioned  its  delivery. 

(3)  The  Committee  has  received  testimony  from  a  num- 
ber of  sources  that  Prof.  R.  R.  Lyman,  a  personal  friend  of 
the  Governor's,  made  inquiries  during  February,  1915 — 
while  the  appropriation  bills  were  pending — to  ascertain 
what  teachers  had  passed  favorably  upon  the  oration. 
These  inquiries  were  believed  by  those  concerned  to  be 
made  at  the  request  and  for  the  information  of  the  Govern- 
or. Mr.  C.  W.  Snow,  one  of  the  instructors  dismissed  on 
March  17,  submits  the  following  deposition: 

STATE  OF  UTAH 

COUNTY  OF  SALT  LAKE 

I,  Charles  W.  Snow,  being  first  duly  sworn  according  to  law, 
depose  and  say: 

That  on  or  about  the  24th  day  of  February,  A.D.,  1915,  Presi- 
dent Kingsbury  of  the  University  of  Utah,  summoned  me  to  his 
office  and  informed  me  that  he  would  not  recommend  me  to  the 
Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  of  Utah  for  reappointment  as 
instructor  in  the  English  Department  of  the  said  institution ;  that 
on  or  about  the  aforesaid  date,  Prof.  Richard  R.  Lyman  invited 
me  to  his  office  at  the  University,  and  there  asked  me  what  con- 
nection, if  any,  I  had  with  the  writing  of  the  commencement  ad- 
dress of  Mr.  Milton  H.  Sevy;  that  in  reply  to  said  inquiry,  I  in- 
formed Professor  Lyman  that  Mr.  Sevy  himself  wrote  the  address 
but  that  I  went  over  it  with  him  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  him  in 
rhetoric  and  delivery;  that  Prof.  Lyman  thereupon  informed  me 
that  I  had  acted  untactfully;  that  I  am  unable  to  swear  positively 
whether  the  aforesaid  interview  with  Prof.  Lyman  took  place 
before  or  immediately  after  my  dismissal  by  President  Kingsbury, 
but  I  do  swear  positively  that  the  said  interview  took  place  on  or 


68     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

about  the  same  date  as  my  dismissal;  that  I  am  further  able  to 
swear  positively  that  the  day  after  my  dismissal,  while  reporting 
my  dismissal  to  Dean  Byron  Cummings,  Dean  Cummings  informed 
me  that  Prof.  Lyman  had  been  seeking  to  ascertain  from  him  his 
(Cummings')  connection,  if  any,  with  Mr.  Sevy's  speech. 

CHARLES  W.  SNOW. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  1st  day  of  May,  A.D.,  1915. 

A.  M.  CHENEY, 
Notary  Public. 

The  Committee  has  the  following  affidavit  from  Dean 
Cummings : 

On  the  afternoon  of  the  23rd  or  24th  of  February,  Prof.  Richard 
R.  Lyman  called  me  up  by  phone  and  asked  if  I  had  a  copy  of 
Milton  Sevy's  speech.  On  my  stating  that  I  had  not,  and  asking 
why,  he  replied  that  he  understood  that  I  had  something  to  do 
with  the  preparation  of  that  speech  and  so  he  thought  I  probably 
had  a  copy  of  it.  I  stated  that,  if  he  cared  to  know,  Mr.  Sevy 
came  into  my  office  and  read  the  speech  to  me  before  he  delivered 
it  on  the  commencement  stage. 

On  Monday,  March  1,  at  close  of  Faculty  meeting,  I  asked 
Prof.  Lyman  if  he  had  secured  all  the  information  he  desired.  He 
pleaded  ignorance  of  what  I  meant  and  on  being  reminded  that 
he  had  seemed  specially  interested  in  a  certain  speech,  he  said  that 
he  had  had  a  conference  with  Mr.  Snow  that  day  and  thought  he 
had  gotten  some  added  information.  I  then  asked  him  why  he 
was  so  much  interested  in  Sevy's  speech  anyway;  and  he  replied 
that  he  was  asked  to  get  certain  information  and  was  proceeding 
to  do  so. 

On  the  following  Friday  evening,  March  fifth,  at  a  University 
party  on  the  campus,  Prof.  Lyman,  during  the  course  of  a  conver- 
sation said  that  perhaps  he  ought  to  make  a  confession  to  me  and 
proceeded  to  state  that  in  conversation  with  the  Governor  a  few 
days  before,  the  Governor  had  stated  that  he  (the  Governor)  had 
heard  that  Mr.  Cummings  knew  all  about  Sevy's  speech  before  it 
was  delivered,  that  he  could  not  believe  it,  elbc.,  that  Prof.  Lyman 
had  replied  that  he  did  not  believe  it  but  thought  he  could  find  out 
if  he  would  like  to  know,  and  that  he  had  proceeded  to  find  out. 
I  remarked  that  he  had  found  out  to  his  satisfaction,  I  hoped.  He 
said  he  had,  but  that  he  was  not  going  to  tell  the  Governor.  I 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        69 

suggested  that  the  Governor  might  call  me  up  and  get  the  facts 
at  first  hand." 

Respectfully  yours, 

BYRON  CUMMINGS. 
.  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  ninth  day  of  April,  1915. 

R.  N.  FORSYTH, 
Notary  Public. 

III.  One  of  the  members  of  the  university  Faculty  who 
has  not  resigned,  states  that : 

In  February,  1915,  Professor  Lyman  spoke  to  him  in  substance, 
as  follows:  "The  Governor  told  me  that  he  would  like  to  know 
who  the  three  men  were  who  saw  that  (Sevy's)  speech  before  it 
was  delivered.  He  (the  Governor)  meant  to  see  that  these  men 
were  disciplined." 

The  writer  of  this  statement  explained  orally  that  he  was 
uncertain  whether  the  last  affirmation  was  a  quotation  from 
the  Governor,  or  merely  an  expression  of  Mr.  Lyman's 
belief  as  to  the  Governor's  purposes.  In  a  subsequent  let- 
ter, the  writer  informs  the  Committee  that  he  has  been  called 
upon  by  Professor  Lyman  (to  whom  a  copy  of  the  statement 
had  been  sent  by  the  Committee),  and  that 

Lyman  denied  positively  that  the  Governor  intimated  such  a 
thing.  The  conclusion  is,  therefore,  that  the  idea  of  discipline  was 
Lyman's  only. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  writer  does  not  modify  that 
part  of  his  original  statement  which  declares  that  Mr.  Lyman 
reported  the  Governor  to  be  desirous  of  knowing  what 
teachers  in  the  University  had  seen  Mr.  Sevy's  speech  be- 
fore it  was  delivered.  The  Committee,  however,  is  already 
aware,  from  the  Governor's  own  letter,  that  he  was  of  the 
opinion  that  some  disciplinary  action  should  be  taken 
against  these  men. 

Professor  Lyman,  on  the  other  hand,  has  sent  the  Commit- 
tee an  affidavit,  and  subsequently  a  supplementary  state- 


70     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

ment,  relating  to  these  incidents.  He  states  that  about 
the  middle  of  February  he  "  happened  to  meet  Governor 
Spry  and  walked  with  him  a  block  or  two  towards  his  home." 
Their  conversation  fell  upon  University  matters,  and  in 
the  course  of  it,  the  commencement  speech  of  Mr.  Sevy  was 
mentioned.  Mr.  Lyman  expressed  his  disapproval  of  this 
speech.  The  Governor,  he  deposes: 

Promptly  explained  that  the  expression  of  such  sentiments 
on  such  an  occasion  might  be  overlooked  when  coming  from  a 
student,  but  that  he  had  been  told  that  a  certain  professor  (giv- 
ing his  name)  read  this  address  before  it  was  delivered.  The 
Governor  added  that  he  had  known  this  professor  for  many  years 
and  regarded  him  as  a  close,  personal  friend;  he  knew  him  to  be 
wise  and  conservative,  and  did  not  believe  that  this  professor 
would  read  such  an  address  and  then  allow  it  to  be  delivered  at 
the  commencement  exercises  to  which  the  state  officials,  who  were 
thus  severely  criticized,  had  been  invited  as  guests  of  honor.  I 
agreed  with  the  Governor  that  the  teacher  named  had  probably 
not  read  the  address  before  it  was  delivered. 

On  the  first  day  of  March  I  learned  where  a  copy  of  the  address 
could  be  found,  and  about  the  same  time  I  learned  the  names  of 
several  of  the  teachers  who  heard  the  address  before  it  was  deliv- 
ered. I  did  not  go  to  the  trouble  of  getting  a  copy  of  it  until 
April  9,  after  you  had  requested  me  to  prepare  this  affidavit.  The 
Governor  did  not  ask  me  to  get  this  address  or  the  names  of  teach- 
ers who  were  connected  with  its  preparation.  I  did  not  proffer 
to  get  this  information  for  him;  he  certainly  was  not  expecting  me 
to  secure  it,  and  he  has  not  asked  me  anything  concerning  it. 

Dean  Holman  in  his  list  of  public  charges  and,  I  believe,  refer- 
ring to  me,  said  "a  professor  has  been  busily  engaged  on  behalf  of 
certain  outside  interests  behind  the  administration  in  ascertain- 
ing just  what  members  of  the  Faculty  Mr.  Sevy  permitted  to  see 
his  speech  before  he  delivered  it;  and  this  gentleman  discovered 
and  reported  that  Dean  Cummings  and  Professor  Roylance 
among  others  had  seen  Mr.  Sevy's  speech  before  he  delivered  it. 

That  my  discoveries  were  those  named  by  Mr.  Holman  is  un- 
true. And  what  my  discoveries  were,  no  one  «lse  (except  Mr. 
Sevy,  so  far  as  I  am  aware)  knows  to  this  day.  That  I  repeated 
names  mentioned,  or  any  other  names  to  any  one  as  being  in  any 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        71 

way  connected  with  the  preparation  or  delivery  of  this  speech  is 
likewise  untrue  and  is  without  the  slightest  foundation  in  fact. 

Yours  very  truly, 
RICHARD  R.  LYMAN. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  13th  day  of  April,  1915. 

A.  R.  EMERY. 

The  declaration  of  a  witness  already  cited,  as  to  remarks 
made  by  Mr.  Lyman  concerning  the  Governor's  attitude 
towards  the  teachers  who  had  approved  Mr.  Sevy's  speech, 
is  contradicted  by  Mr.  Lyman  in  his  supplementary  state- 
ment. That  he  did  in  fact  make  the  inquiries  reported  by 
Dean  Cummings  and  Mr.  Snow,  and  that  these  inquiries 
were  made  at  the  instance  of  some  other  person  or  persons, 
is  not  denied  by  Mr.  Lyman;  who  this  person  or  these  per- 
sons were,  he  declines  to  state,  except  that  he  affirms  that 
the  Governor  was  in  no  way  responsible  for  his  investiga- 
tions. 

The  Committee  does  not  feel  called  upon  to  attempt  to 
resolve  the  conflict  of  testimony  as  to  Professor  Lyman's 
alleged  utterances  concerning  the  Governor's  attitude  dur- 
ing the  month  of  February,  1915.  The  evidence  as  a  whole, 
however,  seems  to  the  Committee  to  justify  certain  con- 
clusions: 

(a)  The  Governor  of  the  state  clearly  attempted  to  exer- 
cise an  improper  pressure  upon  the  Regents  and  the  Pres- 
ident of  the  University  to  cause  them  to  take  some  dis- 
ciplinary action  against  the  teachers  who  had  failed  to 
prevent  Mr.  Sevy  from  delivering  a  speech  of  which  the 
Governor  disapproved.  The  concluding  passage  of  the 
Governor's  letter  to  the  Regents  contained  a  veiled  but 
unmistakable  intimation  that  the  Governor  himself  would 
adopt  an  unfavorable  attitude  towards  the  university  ap- 
propriation bills,  unless  certain  teachers  were  "  curbed  in 
their  utterances  or  relieved  of  their  positions."  The  utter- 
ances of  teachers  and  students  to  which  the  Governor  speci- 
fically referred  were  alleged  expressions  of  the  view  that 
larger  appropriations  for  the  State  University  were  desirable. 


72     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

The  Governor  described  these  teachers  as  making  exorbi- 
tant and  unreasonable  demands  for  educational  appro- 
priations. There  was,  however,  nothing  either  in  Mr. 
Sevy's  speech,  or  in  any  reported  utterances  of  the  pro- 
fessors in  question  to  justify  this  characterization  of  their 
attitude.  If  the  Governor's  reason  for  demanding  that 
the  Board  discipline  the  teachers  concerned  was  such  as  is 
specified  in  his  letter,  he  was  suggesting  the  removal  of 
university  teachers  for  favoring  and  permitting  students  and 
alumni  to  argue  publicly  in  favor  of  more  liberal  appropria- 
tions for  the  institution,  with  which  they  were  connected. 
If  this  were  generally  regarded  in  state  universities  as  a 
ground  for  removal,  it  is  to  be  feared  that  the  faculties  of 
nearly  all  such  universities  would  be  greatly  depleted. 
The  Committee,  however,  finds  it  somewhat  difficult  to 
conceive  that  the  Governor's  vehement  and  repeated* 
attacks  upon  the  speech  and  the  teachers  who  sanctioned 
its  delivery  were  evoked  solely  by  a  single  and  incidental 
sentence  in  the  speech, — a  sentence  which  voiced  no  gen- 
eral demand  for  increased  university  appropriations,  nor 
even  a  demand  for  any  particular  appropriation,  and  which 
made  against  the  state  no  general  charge  of  parsimony  in 
the  support  of  its  educational  institutions,  but  merely  criti- 
cized a  particular  reason  which  the  speaker  declared  had 
been  offered  for  opposing  a  particular  appropriation.  It  is 
indicated  by  Mr.  Sevy's  affidavit  that  the  Governor's  dis- 
approval of  the  speech  was  due  in  part  to  the  political  ten- 
dencies which  it  was  regarded  as  manifesting;  and  that  the 
President  of  the  University  felt  it  to  be  a  matter  of  some 
importance  to  ascertain  that  at  least  one  of  the  teachers 
who  had  approved  the  speech  was  not  an  adherent  of  any 
political  party  opposed  to  that  of  the  Governor. 

(b)  It  is,  then,  established  that  the  President  and  Regents 
had  reason  to  believe  that  the  Governor  would  regard  con- 
ditions in  the  University  with  disapproval,  and  would  prob- 

*  Governor  Spry  has  also  referred  with  censure  to  Mr.  Sevy's  oration  in 
public  addresses. 


KEPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        73 

ably  be  hostile  to  the  university  appropriations  bills,  unless 
the  teachers  responsible  for  permitting  the  delivery  of  Mr. 
Sevy's  oration  were  disciplined.  It  is  also  a  fact  that  one 
of  these  teachers,  the  only  one  of  subordinate  rank,  and  the 
one  chiefly  responsible  for  Mr.  Sevy's  selection  as  a  com- 
mencement orator — Mr.  C.  W.  Snow,  instructor  in  Eng- 
lish— was  among  the  men  " relieved  of  their  positions,"  and 
that  the  President's  recommendation  regarding  him  was 
announced  while  the  legislature  was  in  session  and  the  uni- 
versity appropriation  bills  were  pending.  Mr.  Snow  states: 
"I  urged  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Sevy  as  speaker  before 
Professor  Lyman,  the  Chairman  of  the  Faculty  Committee, 
which  was  to  select  the  speaker.  I  urged  him  because  I 
knew  he  would  talk  on  the  Utah  situation."  The  only 
other  teacher  who  has  been  shown  to  have  formally  passed 
upon  the  speech  was  dean  of  the  college,  had  been  for  many 
years  in  the  service  of  the  University,  was  widely  known  and 
highly  esteemed  in  the  community,  and  was  a  member  of 
the  same  political  party  as  the  Governor.  He  was  not 
dismissed,  though  he  was  led  by  the  Board's  action  of 
March  17  to  resign. 

It  is  evident  that  there  is  some  striking  circumstantial 
evidence  pointing  to  a  connection  between  the  attitude  of 
the  Governor  and  the  dismissal  of  Mr.  Snow.  The  "Public 
Statement"  of  the  Board  of  Regents,  declares  that  "the 
address  of  Milton  H.  Sevy  had  nothing  whatsoever  to  do 
with  the  action  taken"  on  March  17.  The  members  of  the 
Board,  however,  were  evidently  not  in  a  position  to  affirm 
of  their  own  knowledge  as  to  all  of  the  influences  which  had 
affected,  or  the  motives  which  had  actuated,  President 
Kingsbury  in  making  his  recommendation  against  Mr. 
Snow.  The  President's  own  answers  (above  cited)  to  the 
Committee's  questions  concerning  this  incident  are  clearly 
evasive,  and  indicate  an  unwillingness  to  inform  the  Com- 
mittee as  to  the  facts  of  the  matter.  Nevertheless  the 
Committee  does  not  find  that  there  is  conclusive  evidence 
establishing  a  connection  between  the  Governor's  demand 


74     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

for  action  against  the  teachers  who  had  approved  the  speech 
of  Mr.  Sevy,  and  the  President's  recommendation  that  one 
of  those  teachers  be  not  reappointed.*  The  Committee  is, 
however,  of  the  opinion  that  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
are  such  as  to  make  it  highly  desirable  that  an  official  in- 
vestigation into  the  matter  be  made  by  some  local  body 
having  the  power  to  summon  witnesses. 

*  There  has  been  brought  to  the  Committee's  notice  certain  hear-say 
evidence,  tending  to  show  a  direct  connection  between  the  two  facts.  As 
the  Committee  has  been  unable  to  secure  the  direct  testimony  of  the  per- 
sons immediately  cognizant  of  the  circumstances  alleged,  it  has  disregarded 
this  evidence  in  reaching  its  conclusion. 


V.  THE  CHARGE  OF  SECTARIAN  INFLUENCE 
UPON  APPOINTMENTS 

It  has  been  charged  by  some  of  the  resigning  Professors 
and  by  graduates  of  the  University  that  sectarian  religious 
influence,  or  the  desire  of  the  administration  to  placate  a 
certain  religious  body,  has  been  responsible  for  certain  re- 
cent appointments,  and  for  the  demotion  of  a  Professor  long 
in  the  service  of  the  University.  This  charge  does  not,  as  a 
rule,  appear  expressly  among  the  reasons  originally  given 
by  the  resigning  Professors  for  their  action.  But  it  is  clear 
from  subsequent  statements  that  in  the  case  of  several  of 
these  teachers  one  of  the  principal  motives  for  resignation 
was  a  belief  that  the  President  had  of  late  been  subject  to 
increasing  pressure  to  fill  important  positions  in  the  Faculty 
with  men  selected,  not  primarily  on  grounds  of  scholarship 
and  teaching  ability,  but  because  of  their  connection  with 
the  religious  denomination  to  which  the  majority  of  the 
people  of  the  state,  and  a  majority  of  the  Board  of  Regents, 
adhere— the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints, 
commonly  known  as  the  Mormon  Church.*  It  was  further 
believed  by  some  of  the  resigning  Professors  that  the  Pres- 
ident had  more  than  once  yielded  to  this  pressure;  and  that 
the  University  was  in  consequence  losing  its  non-sectarian 
character.  Though  the  Committee  would  gladly  avoid 
dealing  with  an  issue  of  this  sort,  it  feels  itself  obligated,  in 
view  of  the  seriousness  of  the  charge  and  the  place  that  it 
has  had  in  the  controversy,  to  examine  the  evidence  bearing 
upon  the  matter.  This  evidence  is  indirect,  and,  as  laid 
before  the  Committee,  consists  in  the  following  circum- 
stances: 

1.  Mr.  Perry  G.  Snow  was  in  1911  appointed  Professor  of 
Anatomy  in  the  School  of  Medicine,  and  shortly  after,  Act- 

*  President  Kingsbury  is  not  himself  a  member  of  this  body. 

75 


76     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

ing  Dean  of  the  School.  He  received  the  degree  of  bachelor 
of  arts  from  the  University  of  Utah  in  1909.  At  the  time 
of  the  former  appointment,  he  was  a  second-year  student  in 
a  medical  school;  and  at  the  time  of  the  latter  appointment, 
he  had  not  yet  taken  any  degree  in  medicine.  Mr.  Snow  is 
a  member  of  the  Mormon  Church,  and  of  a  family  promi- 
nent in  the  history  of  that  body. 

2.  More  closely  related  to  the  present  difficulties  in  the 
University  are  the  changes  in  the  staff  of  the  Department 
of  English  made  by  the  Board  of  Regents  in  March,  1915. 
On  this  date,  in  accordance  with  a  recommendation  of  the 
President  previously  made  public,  Prof.  George  M.  Marshall 
was  removed  from  the  headship  of  the  department  of  Eng- 
lish (but  not  from  his  professorship),  and  Mr.  O.  J.  P.  Widt- 
soe  was  appointed  to  a  professorship  in  English  and  to  the 
headship  of  the  department — thereby  outranking  also  Mr. 
F.  W.  Reynolds,  Professor  of  English.  The  relevant  facts 
concerning  the  Professor  demoted,  and  his  successor,  so  far 
as  the  Committee  has  been  able  ,to  ascertain  them,  are  as 
follows: 

(a)  Professor  Marshall,  a  bachelor  of  arts  of  Cornell 
(1887)  and  a  master  of  arts  of  Harvard  (1905),  was  the 
senior  member  of  the  Faculty  (after  President  Kingsbury), 
and  had  been  a  teacher  in  the  University  for  twenty-three 
years.  He  has  published  an  edition  of  Dry  den's  "Palamon 
and  Arcite,"  and  articles  in  the  tenth  (American)  edition  of 
the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica.  Mr.  Marshall  is  not  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Mormon  Church.  There  is  evidence  that  he  has 
frequently  been  criticized  by  individual  members  and  offi- 
cials of  that  church  on  two  grounds.  The  first  complaint 
was  that  he  had  not  recommended  Mormons  for  appoint- 
ment in  his  department.  Dean  Holman  states  to  the  Com- 
mittee that  in  his  presence  ' '  Professor  Marshall  was  on  one 
occasion  charged  by  Prof.  J.  H.  Paul  with  never  having  em- 
ployed a  Mormon,  and  with  preferring  Eastern  men." 
With  regard  to  this  complaint,  Professor  Marshall  declares 
that  the  assertion  that  he  never  recommended  Mormons  is 
untrue;  but  that  it  is  a  fact  that  he  has  for  the  most  part 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        77 

sought  to  secure  instructors,  especially  in  English  composi- 
tion, from  Eastern  universities  having  a  special  reputation 
for  the  training  which  they  give  in  this  subject. 

The  other  complaint  which  appears  to  have  been  made 
of  Professor  Marshall  by  some  members  of  the  Mormon 
Church  has  been  that  in  courses  in  the  history  of  English 
literature  he  has  frequently  expressed  admiration  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  that  in  a  course  on  Dante  he  has 
spoken  in  a  favorable  manner  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  With  respect  to  the  latter  complaint,  five  recent 
students  under  Professor  Marshall,  in  a  letter  to  this  Com- 
mittee, write: 

His  course  in  Dante  is  especially  fine,  and  the  only  criticism 
has  been  not  because  of  lack  of  knowledge,  but  because  of  empha- 
sizing the  historical  significance  of  Catholic  theology. 

The  Committee  is  in  possession  of  no  evidence  to  indicate 
that  Professor  Marshall's  references  to  certain  religious 
bodies  were  of  an  improper  character.  The  facts  here 
mentioned  are  significant  only  in  so  far  as  they  tend  to  show 
that  Professor  Marshall's  management  of  the  English  de- 
partment was  viewed  with  disfavor  by  members  of  the  Mor- 
mon denomination. 

The  reason  officially  given  for  Mr.  Marshall's  demotion 
was  that  he  "had  not  retained  the  full  efficiency  and  vigor 
that  is  expected  and  demanded  of  Professors  and  instruc- 
tors."* The  Dean  of  the  College  of  Arts  and  Sciences, 
Professor  Cummings,  expresses  the  opinion  that  Professor 
Marshall  was  an  able  and  efficient  teacher,  remarkably  de- 
voted to  his  work.  A  letter  prepared  by  a  committee  of 
five  of  Professor  Marshall's  students  states: 

When  the  news  was  confirmed  that  Professor  Marshall  had 
been  demoted  on  a  charge  of  inefficiency,  there  was  much  indig- 
nation, and  some  of  us  students  circulated  a  petition  among  others 
of  his  present  students,  containing  statements  of  appreciation  of 
him  and  his  work.  Two-thirds  of  his  students  in  the  regular 

*  "Public  Statement,"  page  14. 


78     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

course  signed  this  petition,  and  four  out  of  five  of  those  studying 
for  an  M.A.  degree.  The  majority  of  the  students  who  did  not 
sign  the  petition  explained  that  though  they  appreciated  Professor 
Marshall's  scholarship  and  work,  they  did  not  want  to  antagonize 

the  President  of  the  University 

We  know  that  the  charges  brought  against  Professor  Marshall 
are  preposterous,  and  we  hope  that  you  will  take  into  considera- 
tion, in  summing  up  his  case,  the  elements  with  which  we  are 
obliged  to  contend.  Very  few  have  criticized  Professor  Marshall 
when  asked  to  sign  the  petition  and  these  few  criticisms  were 
directed,  not  at  all  against  his  ability  as  a  teacher,  but  rather 
against  certain  views  he  has  expressed. 

This  letter  is  accompanied  by  a  deposition  by  Mrs.  Helen 
S.  Sanford,  testifying  to  the  truth  of  the  statements  of  fact 
contained  therein.  The  student  newspaper,  The  University 
Chronicle*  expresses  the  opinion  that  "  Professor  Marshall's 
department  has  been  filled  with  the  most  progressive  and 
up-to-date  men  in  the  Faculty. 

(b)  Mr.  O.  J.  P.  Widtsoe  has  been  good  enough  to  com- 
municate, at  the  Committee's  request,  an  outline  of  his  pro- 
fessional career.  In  condensed  form,  it  is  as  follows: 

B.S.  (in  chemistry),  Utah  Agricultural  College,  1897;  engaged 
in  missionary  work  on  islands  of  South  Pacific,  1897-1901;  head 
of  department  of  chemistry  and  physics,  and  teacher  of  English, 
in  Latter  Day  Saints'  High  School,  1901-1903;  graduate  student 
in  English,  Harvard  University,  1903-1905;  A.M.,  Harvard,  1905; 
head  of  department  of  English,  Latter  Day  Saints'  High  School, 
1905-1915;  Principal,  1909-1915,  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints'  High 
School,  including  also  the  business  college,  night  school  and  sum- 
mer school.  Has  taught  in  summer  sessions  at  Utah  Agricultural 
College,  Brigham  Young  University,  and  University  of  Utah. 

Publications:  "The  Restoration  of  the  Gospel,"  (a  volume  of 
Mormon  apologetics,  consisting  chiefly  of  lessons  prepared  for 
the  Young  Ladies'  Mutual  Improvement  Association,  1910- 
1911),  with  an  introduction  by  Joseph  F.  Smith,  Jr.,  of  the  Quorum 
of  Twelve  Apostles,  1912.  Editor:  The  Juvenile  Instructor,  a 

*  It  should  be  remarked  that  this  paper  has  throughout  the  controversy 
been  antagonistic  to  President  Kingsbury. 


REPORT  OF  CONDITIONS  AT  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH        79 

monthly  magazine  devoted  to  the  interests  of  the  Sunday  Schools 
of  the  Mormon  Church. 

Mr.  Widtsoe  also  holds  the  office  of  bishop  in  the  Mormon 
Church.  With  reference  to  Mr.  Widtsoe's  appointment, 
the  following  question  has  been  placed  before  President 
Kingsbury : 

Did  Dr.  Kingsbury  at  any  time  receive  any  suggestion,  direct 
or  indirect,  from  any  official  of  the  Mormon  Church,  with  respect 
to  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Widtsoe? 

Answer:  No. 

Richard  Young,  Esq.,  Chairman  of  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee of  the  Board  of  Regents,  and  an  official  of  the  Mor- 
mon Church,  also  states  that,  so  far  as  he  is  aware,  the 
proposal  for  the  demotion  of  Professor  Marshall  and  for 
the  appointment  of  Mr.  Widtsoe  came  from  President 
Kingsbury  himself.*  In  his  oral  statement  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  this  Association,  Dr.  Kingsbury,  in  reply  to  an  inter- 
rogation upon  this  point,  said  that,  while  it  was  his  usual 
custom  before  filling  positions  in  the  Faculty  to  secure  from 
other  universities  suggestions  and  recommendations  of  suit- 
able men,  he  had  not  sought  such  suggestions  before  appoint- 
ing Mr.  Widtsoe  to  the  headship  of  the  department  of 
English. 

The  Committee  has,  of  course,  no  means  of  judging  of 
the  general  abilities,  and  the  skill  as  teachers,  of  Mr.  P.  G. 
Snow  and  Mr.  Widtsoe;  it  has  no  reason  to  doubt  that  they 
are  of  the  highest  character.  It  seems  to  the  Committee, 
however,  to  be  evident  that,  considering  only  the  length  of 
training  and  the  professional  experience  of  the  appointees, 
these  appointments  were  such  as  to  justify  the  surprise 
which  they  evoked  among  a  number  of  members  of  the 
Utah  Faculty.  The  essential  facts  with  regard  to  Mr. 
Widtsoe  are  that,  when  placed  over  a  departmental  staff  of 
seven  Professors  and  instructors,  he  had  had  only  two  years 
of  post-graduate  study  in  his  subject;  that  he  had  never  been 

*  Oral  statement  to  Secretary  of  this  Association. 


80     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

a  member  of  a  college  or  university  faculty  and  without 
experience  in  regular  college  teaching;  that  he  had  for  the 
six  years  preceding  his  appointment  been  engaged  in  the 
heavy  duties  of  school  administration  necessarily  entailed 
by  the  principalship  of  a  combined  high  school,  business 
college,  night  school  and  summer  school;  and  that  his  only 
publications  were  works  of  theological  controversy  and  de- 
nominational apologetics.  This  preparation  is  not  such  as 
is  at  present  usually  expected  in  those  appointed  to  head- 
ships of  important  departments  in  either  colleges  or  uni- 
versities of  good  standing. 

These  facts,  however,  are,  in  the  Committee's  opinion, 
not  such  as  to  enable  it  to  judge  of  the  motives  of  the  Pres- 
ident of  the  University  and  of  the  Board  of  Regents  in 
making  the  appointments  and  the  demotion  which  have 
been  called  in  question. 


VI.  PRESENT  ATTITUDE  OF  REGENTS  TOWARD 
REQUESTS  FOR  AN  INVESTIGATION 

One  of  the  gravest  and  most  regrettable  features  of  the 
situation  at  the  University  of  Utah,  in  this  Committee's 
opinion,  is  the  attitude  which  has  from  the  beginning  been 
consistently  maintained  by  the  Board  of  Regents  toward 
numerous  petitions  asking  for  a  thorough  public  investiga- 
tion of  the  recent  incidents  and  of  general  university  condi- 
tions. These  petitions,  which  have  come  from  the  Faculty, 
the  Alumni  Association,  the  students,  and  a  large  number  of 
citizens  of  the  state  of  Utah,  the  Board  has  in  all  cases  re- 
jected, declaring  that  it  alone  is  responsible  for  the  manage- 
ment of  the  University,  that  it  has  no  doubts  as  to  the  cor- 
rectness of  its  past  action  and  the  rectitude  of  its  own 
motives  and  those  of  the  President  and  that  it  therefore 
cannot  permit  its  action  to  be  influenced  by  protests  coming 
from  others.  This  position  seems  to  the  Committee  to  show 
that  the  Board  fails  to  understand,  or  at  least  to  act  upon, 
three  fundamental  facts:  namely,  that  every  institution  of 
public  education,  and  especially  a  state  university,  requires 
for  its  success  the  confidence  and  respect  of  the  public;  that 
there  can  be  no  sure  hold  upon  public  confidence  without  an 
unflinching  readiness  to  face  publicity  in  regard  to  all  official 
acts  and  policies;  and  that  the  only  effective  way  in  which 
any  public  body  can  meet  serious  charges  brought  by  re- 
sponsible persons  is  by  not  merely  permitting  but  demand- 
ing a  searching  and  open  inquiry  into  its  methods. 

The  foregoing  examination  of  the  evidence  in  the  posses- 
sion of  this  Committee  indicates  that  two  or  three  features 
of  the  case  have  not  yet  been  fully  cleared  up,  and  that  so 
long  as  these  incidents  are  not  in  all  their  aspects  defini- 
tively investigated,  certain  suspicions  with  respect  to  con- 
ditions and  administrative  methods  in  the  University  are 

81 


82     AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  OF  UNIVERSITY  PROFESSORS 

likely,  whether  justly  or  otherwise,  to  continue  to  have 
currency.  Nothing  has  done  so  much  to  strengthen  the 
widespread  feeling  of  distrust  which  has  unquestionably 
been  engendered  by  recent  events  at  the  University,  as  the 
attitude  still  held  by  the  Board  of  Regents;  a  persistent  re- 
fusal to  permit  the  disclosure  of  all  the  facts  in  such  cases,  al- 
ways gives  color  to  the  belief  that  there  exist  facts  unsuited 
for  disclosure.  The  Committee  gathers  that  the  persist- 
ence of  the  Board  in  its  present  position  has  aroused  on  the 
part  of  a  large  section  of  the  local  public,  including  many  of 
the  alumni  and  a  majority  of  the  students,  a  degree  of  sus- 
picion, and  even  hostility,  which  must  be  a  continuing  detri- 
ment to  the  University's  efficiency  as  an  instrument  of  pub- 
lic education,  and  must  affect  disadvantageously  the  posi- 
tion and  the  work  of  teachers  in  the  institution. 

In  closing,  your  Committee  desires  to  recall  the  fact  that 
in  so  far  as  the  chief  point  at  issue  is  concerned — the  offi- 
cial grounds  for  the  dismissal  of  the  officers  in  question — the 
conclusions  of  the  Committee  are  found  in  the  Summary  on 
pages  40-41  of  this  report. 

The  above  findings  are  unanimously  concurred  in  by  the 
members  of  the  Committee  of  Inquiry. 

EDWIN  R.  A.  SELIGMAN,  Chairman, 

Columbia  University. 
JOHN  DEWEY, 

Columbia  University. 
FRANK  A.  FETTER, 

Princeton  University. 
JAMES  P.  LICHTENBERGER, 

University  of  Pennsylvania. 
ARTHUR  O.  LOVEJOY, 

Johns  Hopkins  University. 
ROSCOE  POUND, 

Harvard  University. 
HOWARD  C.  WARREN, 

Princeton  University. 


THIS  BOOK  JS  DOT  ON  THE^AST  DATE 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  5O  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $I.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


*«M*2 


AHH  22  1*4V 


23Jan'56BCT 


veto? 


L.D 


17  "65-1' 


RPR 


Zt'4C   7 


LD  21-100m.7,'40(6936a) 


M138492 


*£>  553$ 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


